Sketches on Atheism

The Omnimalevolent Creator and the Problem of Good

An adaptation of Christopher New’s 1993 essay: Antitheism, A Reflection

 DevilIf we found a bomb concealed in a children’s kindergarten, primed and set to detonate when it would wreak the greatest possible carnage, we would reasonably assume that someone vicious and vile – someone evil – had designed the device and had purposefully put it there maximise suffering. How much more reasonable must it be for the impartial observer to then attribute the world as we know it to a vicious and vile, non-contingent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnimalevolent designer? Is this not, after all, the most likely explanation for the world before us?

Who else but a perfectly malevolent being would arrange for the enormous suffering present and guaranteed in our perilously thin, blisteringly violent biosphere? Think of the pain and destruction wrought by earthquakes, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, famines and disease. Would a benevolent designer have made provision for such assured suffering? Who but a hostile and sadistic being would design complex organic life, enveloped by sensors so acutely tuned to feel pain? Who but a blighted creator would model and shape the human brain, so exquisitely geared to experience fear and anxiety, and the capacity to foresee its own death? Would a benevolent designer have conceived of the parasitoid wasp, ring worm, the brain burrowing Human Bot Fly larvae, or the Ebola virus? Who else but a degenerate could conceptualise jaws and teeth and claws, so expertly crafted to puncture and tear at living flesh just so one beast – always the more violent and cunning – may steal another beast’s protein in a daily apocalypse of bloodletting? Who but perfect wickedness would envision cancer, so beautifully adapted to ravage and kill innocent children, or osteoporosis and arthritis to ensure maximum suffering of the elderly? Who but a thoroughly debased creator would design cot death? Who but a malevolent being would call His aesthetic masterpiece, Man; a creature as adept to enslaving, torturing and killing one, as he is to enslaving, torturing and killing ten million? Who but a contemptible being could so effortlessly herd humans and animals alike into defined Kill Zones along fertile river basins and the rich bases of volcanoes where the soils are irresistible, but calamity is assured? Indeed, is not the universe itself the greatest perversion, and therefore greatest proof of this creators existence? Who but the immaculate embodiment of malice would design such a thing; a contaminated prize always seen, yet forever out of reach. Is this not the crowning torment which a wicked creator would dangle in front of the eyes of a curious explorer?

Undeniably, we observe His hand in every corner of the world – an intelligently designed world – and through advanced ontological reasoning can conclude that the Author of Sin necessarily exists. If one can imagine such a being – a being with whom no worse can be conceived – in one possible universe, then that being’s existence cannot be intelligibly denied in all possible universes. The conclusion follows:

  1. It is possible that a maximally wicked being exists.
  2. If it’s possible that a maximally wicked being exists, then a maximally wicked being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally wicked being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally wicked being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. Therefore, a maximally wicked being exists in the actual world.
  6. Therefore, a maximally wicked being exists.
  7. Therefore, the Omnimalevolent creator exists.

While true there do exist sceptics and unbelievers, the only coherent objection ever presented by non-believers to deny the self-evident existence of an omnimalevolent creator is the so-named, Problem of Good. It is asked: if the owner of all Infernal Names is omniscient, omnipotent and omnimalevolent, why then does He allow the existence of good in the world? Either He can’t prevent it, in which case He is not omnipotent, or else He chooses to allow it, in which case He is not omnimalevolent. To answer we must distinguish between natural good and moral good. Natural good encompasses anomalous occurrences like health, good harvests, fine weather, and the temporary absence of earthquakes and pestilence; natural events which give limited reprieve to more assured passages of suffering. Moral good on the other hand arises from human actions that briefly promote wellbeing, harmony and peace rather than disorder and suffering which is the staple of all human civilisation.

drownedFirst, the existence of natural good may be explained as an inevitable consequence of the laws of nature; parameters that are necessary for the wholesale production of evil. If we are to cause harm, we must first know how to do so, and this requires the predictability found in the laws of nature as laid out by the Author of Sin. If, for example, we wish to drown unwanted girl-children, we must first know that unwanted girl-children (and human beings in general) cannot breathe under water. If we could not rely on this fact, and millions like it, our efforts to do wrong would be chaotic and ineffective, and suffering would be seriously reduced. Easy respiration on land is, therefore, a necessary residue, and superfluous good – natural good – is the minimum necessary for the overall production of the maximum of evil.

Second, the unsightly existence moral good – the good resulting from misguided human action – is little more than the anomalous consequence of free will; summarised generally as the free will defence. Simply put, we sometimes choose to do good, and the omnimalevolent creator has made the world such that we have the opportunity to do massive good if we choose. Why, the sceptic asks, would a perfectly evil creator permit such an abomination? The answer is as eloquent as it is villainous: free will is an evil in and by itself, for it makes sin possible and allows us all to approach a little nearer to the highest status of our wicked creator. Consider this: is it not worse to do evil by our own free will than being causally determined to sow mayhem? Granted, in creating men with free will the Great Architect of Suffering has to accept that sometime man may act for good rather than wickedness, but the greater evil that is realised through the possession of free will far outweighs the occasional good that also occurs through its existence. The world, in other words, is a worse place for the existence of free will.

For sceptics the free will defence fails, however, to answer why the guilty also suffer. If the omnimalevolent creator exists, sceptics rightly ask, why does He allow the guilty, who have never done anything good, to sometimes suffer? While superficially meaningful, the objection is as confused and disorganised as prayer. Since the Author of Sin promotes only evil, He has no interest in protecting the wicked from suffering, so it should not surprise us that the wicked suffer as well as the good; in that way guaranteeing greater misery is brought about. Whether it is the wicked or the good that suffer is of no concern to Him. It is the quantity and quality of suffering that matters, not the distribution, so He allows His pain to fall upon the unjust and the just in equal measure. It is clear, therefore, to conclude with great confidence that the problem of good is not insoluble, and that there is no compelling argument against the existence of the omnimalevolent creator.

Advertisements

458 thoughts on “The Omnimalevolent Creator and the Problem of Good

  1. I would like my friends here to read the following for a preliminary understanding the “Question of Suffering”:

    “When we explore the history of evolution in search of the causative factors which gave birth to the sensory organs as life evolved, we can safely conclude that right from the beginning they have always been the sense of loss and gain. We identify the journey of evolution to be a long procession of some obscure realization of gains and losses which gradually evolved the sensory organs to register the presence of pleasure and pain, comfort and suffering.

    If we look back at the lower forms of life, at the first few rungs of the ladder and compare them with the higher forms of life near the top, it is not difficult to recognize that in real terms the evolution is the evolution of consciousness. Life is constantly spiraling up from a lesser state of consciousness to a higher state with continuously sharpening faculties of awareness.

    The awareness of gain and loss is rather vague and obscure in the beginning, and we cannot locate a definite seat for this awareness in the anatomy of rudimentary organisms. But we know from their reactions to the surrounding elements and situations that they do possess some defused sense of awareness. It is this diffused inexplicable sense which is employed somehow by the Creator to initiate the sense of perception in life.

    This sense of perception gradually developed and created its own seats in the organism of life. It is these seats which got precipitated ultimately into what we know now as sensory organs. The creation of the brain was not a separate and unrelated incident. No development of sensory organs could be meaningful without a corresponding development of a central nervous system and a simultaneous evolution of the brain, which could decipher the messages transmitted by the sensory organs.

    Evidently therefore, the brain developed as an essential counterpart of the system of perception. The more evolved the consciousness becomes, the more intense grows the sense of loss and gain felt by specific nerve centres which translate the awareness of loss as suffering, and gain as pleasure, to the mind through the brain.
    The less developed the consciousness, the smaller is the awareness of suffering. The same goes for happiness.

    Thus, the sensory provisions for the recognition of suffering and happiness are indispensable to each other. It is quite likely that if the level to which suffering can be experienced is reduced, its opposite number, the capacity to feel pleasure and happiness, will also be lowered to the same degree. The two seem to participate equally in propelling the wheel of evolution; both possess equal significance. One cannot be done away with alone without the other, thus nullifying the entire creative plan of evolution.

    We understand from the Holy Quran, that God did not create suffering as an independent entity in its own right, but only as an indispensable counterpart of pleasure and comfort. The absence of happiness is suffering, which is like its shadow, just as darkness is the shadow cast by the absence of light. If there is life, there has to be death; both are situated at the extreme poles of the same plane, with innumerable grades and shades in between.

    As we move away from death, we gradually move towards a state of life which is happiness; as we move away from life, we move away with a sense of loss and sorrow towards death. This is the key to understanding the struggle for existence, which in turn leads to a constant improvement in the quality of life and helps it to achieve the ultimate goal of evolution. The principle of the “survival of the fittest” plays an integral role in this grand scheme of evolution.”

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad
    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_6.html

    Like

      • @BOBBIERILEYJR :March 19, 2014 at 2:26 am
        “What verse, or Chapter, in you Qur’an do you get this knowledge?”Unquote

        “This phenomenon is mentioned in the Holy Quran in the following verse:

        Blessed is He in whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
        It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving. *67:2-3
        The answer to the question ‘Why is there suffering?’ is clearly implied in this verse in its widest application.”

        Mirza Tahir Ahmad
        http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_6.html

        *

        تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ الْمُلْكُ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
        TRANSLITERATION:
        tabāraka lladhī bi-yadihi l-mulku wa-huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīrun-i

        الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفُورُ
        TRANSLITERATION:
        alladhī khalaqa l-mawta wa-l-ḥayāta li-yabluwakum ʾayyukum ʾaḥsanu ʿamalan wa-huwa l-ʿazīzu l-ghafūru

        You asked a good question.

        Thanks and regards

        Like

  2. Pingback: “Survival of the Fittest” plays its role in suffering and happiness | paarsurrey

  3. Pingback: ‘Why is there suffering?’ | paarsurrey

  4. Pingback: One-True-God; He is the Gracious the Merciful; very truly | paarsurrey

  5. Further on suffering

    The profound philosophy of life and death, the innumerable shades in between, and the role they play in shaping life and improving its quality are all noteworthy.

    We know that life is only a positive value, and death merely means its absence, and no sharp border exists separating one from the other. It is a gradual process; the way life travels towards death and ebbs out, or from the other direction we view death travelling towards life gaining strength, energy and consciousness as it moves on. This is the grand plan of creation.

    It is the perpetual struggle between life and death that subjects the living to a constant state of trial, so that all who conduct themselves best survive and gain a higher status of existence.

    It is this constant struggle between the forces of life and the forces of death which provide the thrust to the living to perpetually move away from death or towards it. It may result either in the improvement or deterioration in the quality of existence in the wide spectrum of evolutionary changes. This is the essence and spirit of evolution.

    Suffering could only be considered objectionable if it were created as an independent entity with no meaningful role to play in the scheme of things. But without the taste of suffering or an awareness of what it means, the feeling of relief and comfort would also vanish. Without an encounter with pain and misery, most certainly, joy and happiness would lose all meaning. Indeed the very existence of life would lose purpose, and the steps of evolution would stop dead in their tracks.

    Mirza Tahir Ahmad
    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_6.html

    Like

  6. Pingback: Suffering: the steps of evolution would stop dead | paarsurrey

    • “utterly demolished,” huh? LOL! You failed to present a single coherent, predicatively accurate argument… But kudos for trying. I see, though, that after 4 months it still bothers you. Dare I say it, you’re traumatised by it. You should be, and that’s only more evidence for the omnimalevolent creator. The anguish and anxiety you’re so evidently feeling is there now by design, your footing uncertain, your thoughts clouded and confused… and that’s cause for serious concern! If I believed in such nonsense I’d be worried, too 😉

      Like

      • Sorry, but not only did I completely demolish your little thought experiment, you ended up running away with the tail between your legs the moment I exposed your shameless fraudulent assertions for what they are (ie. I showed that the “evidence” you cited to support your case not only did not say what you claimed it said, but actually said the exact opposite!). Any person with half a brain who reads through our arguments in that link will be able to see through your empty rhetoric now.

        In any case, I thought it would be prudent to bring this here. But for some reason I wasn’t able to post on your blog until now. Yet, even now your casual relationship with the facts is openly manifested. It’s true that I made the claim that Nature is omniscient, but just because I’m part of Nature doesn’t mean that I’m also omniscient. So there is no reason to think that your post bothered me a full month and a half before you even wrote it. 😉

        Like

      • If you weren’t traumatised by it, why then are you still so clearly bothered by it? If you’re so confident you established a case that the world we see around is, in fact, guided by a loving, mindful, thoughtful Middle Eastern deity (a designer who has our best interests at heart and expresses this love by manufacturing forever more virulent diseases just so death and suffering and human anxiety is always kept fresh and alive… a designer whose Masterpiece proceeds always and only by Crisis, which forces urgent Response, before the next Crisis tears it all down) why are you, over four months later, still shouting to the air? If you weren’t tormented, why come here, where the conversation didn’t even take place, and start squawking like a spooked child that you did, did, did, did, did counter the presence of the Omnimalevolent Designer?

        Your actions, I’m afraid to say, betray your profoundly disturbed state of mind.

        What did you do, tweak our very long thread; editing out those personally embarrassing moments, smoothing over your arguments, inserting those little nuggets which kept you up late at night as you kicked yourself for not making at the time, manicuring and altering your words to now read better? Is that why you’re here now promoting yourself?

        Like

      • I see that you’re back to your regular debating mode: a) distort and mischaracterize my position, b) ignore all evidence that contradict your assertions and pretend like they don’t exist, c) plow on with your debunked argument as if nothing happened.

        Sorry, but I’m not going to participate in this farce. First, you said nothing new here that I didn’t already debunk. And second, you and your argument already lost all credibility the moment you decided to make misleading claims and falsify evidence to support your case.

        And now this:
        “What did you do, tweak our very long thread; editing out those personally embarrassing moments, smoothing over your arguments, inserting those little nuggets which kept you up late at night as you kicked yourself for not making at the time, manicuring and altering your words to now read better? Is that why you’re here now promoting yourself?”

        What I joke. Both of us know the truth about your fraudulent assertions – both there and now here. Both of us know that you knowingly falsified evidence to promote your case, and then ran away from the debate the moment I exposed your fraud. How pathetic.

        Also, “over four months later”? Please. What a transparent lie. You only penned this post on March 10. So anyone can do the math on how credible your claims are.

        Like

      • Fraudulent assertions? LOL!!! Are you trying to say presenting the case for a fictitious creator spirit is some type of “fraud”? That is truly, truly priceless!

        I’m sorry, but now it’s beyond all doubt that you are in a desperate, hysterical emotional state over all this. Clearly you’ve been psychologically crippled, your mind vandalised and your worldview irrevocably corrupted by your pronounced inability to defend your precious (also fictitious) Middle Eastern deity.

        I feel genuine sympathy for you. If I actually believed in this nonsense I’d be beside myself with the same terror and anxiety you’re so evidently struggling with. Perhaps, just perhaps, I’d be as traumatised as you are today, babbling incoherently like an inconsolable child whose favourite toy has been broken, and can’t be repaired. Certainly, the reality of the situation, from your vantage, is dangerously unsavoury. Who else, after all, but the immaculate embodiment of wickedness would gift his most treasured instruments of amusement the power to dream and imagine… For what greater perverted pleasure is there for a wicked creator than permitting your prey to hope for an alternative outcome?

        Like

      • Exhibit A, John Zande wrote:
        “Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

        Assured? Guaranteed? Hmm… Let’s look at Exhibit B (ie. what the article actually says):

        “the scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation.”

        (http://www.geopolitics.us/proving-god-exists/#comment-29917)

        Sorry, but your desperate and hysterical attempts to cover up your intellectual dishonesty with empty rhetoric about my supposed emotional state is not going to work. It is transparent. And pathetic.

        Like

      • Pathetic now? My goodness, you really are in a disturbed and disorganised emotional state, aren’t you? Rest assured, the Omnimalevolent Creator is taking great pleasure in your panic-stricken spasms.

        Now, the example you’ve dragged over from your blog is a perfect example, so thanks for helping me demonstrate your delusional state of mind. The context of that tiny window was, as I recall, the guaranteed collapse of our civilisation; a working example of habituation, which is part of the Wicked Creators ingenious method of maximising suffering over time. Habituation, exampled by periods of relative calm is, of course, permitted by the owner of All Infernal Names as this momentary respite in large-scale suffering enables a population (human or animal) to set a new high-water mark of pleasure. Believing, erroneously, the greater environment to be stable they forget the horrors of a few generations before (the droughts, volcanoes, economic depression, war, pestilence, dictatorship, genocide) and get comfortable under the stars. They are lulled into a false sense of security, and this encourages the population to start making greater and greater investments in future enterprises. This is precisely what the Wicked Creator desires his playthings to do. Larger, longer-term investments in the future (families, cultural infrastructure, exploration, empire building, etc.) increases the scale and depth of the canvas available to inflict evil over: the maximisation of suffering over time.
        As a timely example, the NASA funded report came out just that day, or perhaps the day before. It says:

        “global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution… the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to “precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common.”

        That was the extent of it. A study that just so happened to be published as we were discussing the ingenuity and genius of the Wicked Creators monstrous ways. A side note, at best. Being one of the Wicked Creators favourite toys, a gullible adult who dreams of Santa Claus, you (predictably, by design) ignored the greater meat of the work and instead leapt on a single, cheerfully tranquilising line, which read:

        “the scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation.”

        Unquestionably, this line is custom made for a person of your fragile, traumatised, fabulously naïve disposition. It is nothing but vaporous wishful thinking; a dream thrown against the “compelling historical data.” There is very little evidence of anything profoundly positive happening, just the author’s hopeful thoughts that maybe, just maybe, we might (all limbs crossed) skirt through and avoid the inevitable disaster, if only. The truth is, we in fact have examples of the opposite happening. North Carolina just yesterday sunseted the bulk of their environmental laws, ensuring future environmental cataclysm. People, by design, are experts are deluding themselves. Just look at the title of the Guardian article itself: “Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for ‘irreversible collapse’?” The question mark attached to the end is a sensational example of humans with manacled minds and blinkered eyes. Clearly, the Wicked Creator fashioned these tools of deceit, but it is human beings, like yourself, and the person who attached the out-of-place question mark, who wield these ghastly instruments of spurious self-deception. Free Will is, after all, an evil unto itself.

        That said, this soothing, numbing, but utterly fallacious hope for an alternative outcome is precisely what the Wicked Creator desires. He instilled in his most treasured instruments this ability to ignore reality, to self-deceive, to self-betray; to cross their fingers and knock on wood. This gives Him great pleasure. I’d imagine, in fact, it’s presently making Him delirious with perverted excitement. The prey has to be allowed to hope for a different ending, for without that naïve, juvenile bumbling forward there could be no new high water mark, no habituation, no future investments… and the Wicked Creator lusts for these things to be built up as high as they can, just so He can tear them down at a time of His choosing… Maximising suffering over time.

        Like

      • Besides, your entire blog, and every single post in it shows the signs of obsessiveness and lack of self-assurance. It is almost as if you wake up in the middle of the night, completely covered in sweat, and then go to a corner in your room and repeat to yourself: “He isn’t real! He isn’t real! He isn’t real!” Then, after you calm down, you go and churn out another post about why god isn’t real. I do feel sorry for you however. You clearly have a way with words. I just don’t understand why you’re stuck on this one subject. It’s quite sad.

        Like

      • LOL! Project much? Classic hysterical outburst of an emotionally unstable person. You should try actually reading some of my posts… You might learn a thing or two.

        Like

      • It’s really painful to watch your contortions. You’re like a fly caught in a spider’s web. The more you try to extricate yourself the more entangled you become in your own lies.

        You see, if this was a simple misunderstanding, and you did not deliberately falsify the evidence, you’d have no problem showing how the article you cited says what you claim it says (“Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.”). Yet, after your long-winded explanation, you’re still nowhere near showing that. In fact, you’re still at square one. But of course, it’s not just that – the fact that you ran away from the debate the moment I exposed your fabrication says it all.

        But let’s look at your fictitious claims here. You claimed that “The context of that tiny window was, as I recall, the guaranteed collapse of our civilisation.” Well, you recall incorrectly. The context (as anyone can see in the link: http://www.geopolitics.us/proving-god-exists/#comment-29913) is the following: you wanted me to “disprove” your theory. Now, after debunking every single point you made about the supposed existence of an omnimalevolent creator, I also explained to you that it is impossible to “disprove” anything.

        I cannot disprove the theory that the world was created five minutes ago by incredibly smart mosquitos, because for every reasonable argument I put forward against such theory, you can put forward a hundred imaginary arguments to explain away the facts.

        Therefore, the value of any theory can be judged based on how well it meets the following criteria: 1) whether it is refutable, 2) how much explanatory value it has (ie. how accurately describes the evidence we have), and 3) how much predictive value it has.

        The question then was which theory was better. The theory I proposed (here: http://www.geopolitics.us/proving-god-exists/) of Nature being benevolent, or the theory you proposed, of an omnimalevolent creator.

        Now, my theory predicted the following: “the better we understand the laws that govern the world and the laws that govern life, and the more steadfastly we adhere to these laws, the more life will flourish. Conversely, the more ignorant we are of these laws, and the more we neglect to follow them, the more destruction will result.”

        I asked you what predictive value does your theory have, to which you replied:

        “Suffering is guaranteed, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time.”

        After that, I presented you with data that showed your prediction has no basis in reality:

        “According to Harvard Prof. Steven Pinker: “Believe it or not, the world of the past was much worse. Violence has been in decline for thousands of years, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species.” (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180). That is true even if you include all the carnage of the World Wars and the genocides of the past century.”

        So again, your little theory predicted that “the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time”. Yet the data shows the exact opposite, since violence is declining and has been declining for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!! In other words, there is literally no way for a theory to have WORSE predictive value than your theory. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to have a WORSE fit for the data.

        Now, at this point any mature individual would concede defeat and save himself any further humiliation. Only an individual with a pathologically compulsive personality as yourself, who cannot tolerate being wrong, would be in such deep denial of reality to act out of sheer desperation and falsify evidence to make his case.

        So what was your response?

        “…This, as I have already detailed, is permissible as we’re increasing our peak pleasure mark. Having known some semblance of remote peace will only enhance the total war which will come…”

        (what did I say about imaginary arguments to explain away the facts?)

        And then you said this: “Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

        So again, out of the two competing theories, which one has better predictive value? You see, nothing the article said was inconsistent with what the theory I proposed stated. Yet, you had to demonstrate the suffering will AWLAYS increase – your words, not mine. Otherwise, your theory is complete trash. Nothing in the article supported a anything your theory predicted. Nothing.

        So let’s look at your assertion: “Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.””

        Clearly, the key words are “assured” and “guaranteed”. This is what you were trying to prove by citing this article. But when you read through the article, there is nothing to indicate that a collapse is assured or guaranteed. Even in the quote you yourself cited it says: “global industrial civilisation COULD collapse.” Could. Not guaranteed.

        It then says: “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to “precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common.”

        Again: “recurrent cycle found throughout history” – not the dominant cycle, just A cycle you find throughout history. The “Cases of severe civilizational disruption… have been quite common.” Quite common is not quite the same as ALWAYS the case. Lung cancer is quite common. But that doesn’t mean that it’s GUARANTEED that everyone will have it. So again, nothing in the article is in line with what you had to demonstrate.

        It further states that the study found that: “according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse” – “susceptible,” again, not the same as MUST collapse.

        Then you have: “collapse is difficult to avoid” – again, “difficult to avoid” is not the same as IMPOSSIBLE to avoid. Which is what you have to demonstrate.

        But then there are a few more interesting things the article says. For example this: “By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.”

        You see, the article talks about our ability to determine and predict such factors, which is what the theory I presented talks about.

        And then, of course, the coup-de-grace which completely demolishes your case: “the scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation.”

        Once again. The fact that there is such a POSSIBILITY means that your claim that it is ASSURED and GUARANTEED are nothing but lies.

        The article then goes on to describe what has to be done to avoid the scenario of collapse:
        “The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth:

        “Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.”

        Read that again: “Collapse can be avoided” – a direct contradiction of your fraudulent claim that collapse is assured.

        So again, as I said. Your empty rhetoric cannot hide the fact that your little thought experiment has ZERO predictive value and ZERO explanatory value. It is just like any other theological musing out there. 100% faith-based, not fact-based. Your empty rhetoric also cannot cover up the fact that you knowingly falsified evidence to make your case. Which means that you and your theory lost any credibility it could possibly have. How pathetic.

        Like

      • Again with the pathetic? Word of advice: For even the most poorly thought-through screed to be meaningful it has to be rooted in reality.

        Falsify the evidence? LOL! By “evidence” are you referring to the article written by Nafeez Ahmed? That’s not evidence, its opinion of the NASA study, and once again you are, predictably, ignoring the meat of the findings: the “compelling historical data.” This is, of course, the expected behaviour of the delusional and hopelessly naïve, and at the same time it is precisely as the Omnimalevolent Creator desires. As one of His most treasured tools, an adult who believes in benevolent magical cosmic fairies, you are dancing exactly as He hopes.

        Your obsession over this one article (a side note in a larger conversation which you are ignoring) is, however, quite telling. Let us therefore deal with your statement: “The article then goes on to describe what has to be done to avoid the scenario of collapse.” Now I’m not surprised you can’t see it, the inhibiters in your mind are strong and cloud your capacity to grasp reality, but it’s painfully clear that you are simply incapable of distinguishing between things which “should” be done, and things that “are” being done.” Here’s a hint: one is real and tangible, the other is vague and airy. The things you’re running up the flagpole are things “hoped for,” not things that are being effected. These are vaporous dreams, suggestions, wishes, pleas stood up like a grinning, substanceless wicker man against the ocean of “compelling historical data.” Again, North Carolina just this week marched backwards when in an act of sheer lunacy eliminated almost all its environmental laws. Tell me, how many new fracking wells were sunk today, and can you point to a single thing being “done” to eliminate wealth inequality in a real and meaningful way? Can you produce a single study which shows the wealth gap moving in any direction other than further and further apart?

        You see, you cling to this hope of things wished for, which, in the face of compelling contradictory data, can only be described as cute, but dangerously naïve.

        We move on.

        My theory predicted the following: “the better we understand the laws that govern the world and the laws that govern life, and the more steadfastly we adhere to these laws, the more life will flourish. Conversely, the more ignorant we are of these laws, and the more we neglect to follow them, the more destruction will result.”

        Pure wishful, deluded thinking. The opposite is, in fact, true. The more we have learnt about the world the greater and more efficient our destruction of it has become. Bronze Age swords broke against Iron Swords, after all, and chemistry has given us the carbon fuel economy and plastics. Man Made Global Climate Change will ruin a billion lives, but tell the billion Chinese families, and the 1.5 billion Indian families coming up behind them, that we, sitting comfortably in deckchairs on our manicured lawns, can’t possibly afford them to have a refrigerator and a car.

        You bring up Pinker, and I’m glad you do. To refresh your memory, I did not entirely disagree with you regarding his paper, although his measures are fantastically flawed. For example, he cites the genocides named in the Pentateuch as being real, and we know today the Pentateuch is nothing but inventive 7th and 6th Century BCE geopolitical fiction. None of it happened outside of the imaginations of a few Canaanite hill-villagers. It doesn’t, therefore, fill one with great confidence in a person’s ability to accurately describe reality if he can’t distinguish between inventive geopolitical myth and actual historical fact.

        That said, let’s be perfectly clear about something vitally important: Pinker only deals with human-on-human violence, and to be honest, his conclusions are highly debatable. But forget that, there is a larger conversation at hand. Surveying the wicked genius of the Omnimalevolent Creators debased works by looking only at human-on-human violence is like studying a grain of sand and then claiming you can explain the planet. It’s juvenile beyond measure… But again, this is precisely how the Omnimalevolent Creator likes it. Innocence is His favourite toy, and you are thrilling Him in the way you dance.

        To continue: the general theme of Pinker’s dubious observation is a perfect example of the habituation permitted by the owner of All Infernal Names. His six major reference points represent phases of human cultural evolution where the greater canvas of potential suffering was vastly, predictively, increased! Let us take his first phase: the movement from hunter gatherer clans to permanent settlements. This alone increased the human population perhaps 100-fold in short order. The result: more bodies, doing more things over longer lifespans, which ultimately means more scope for suffering. An earthquake striking a clan of 30 nomadic hunter-gatherers produces, at best, only fear and momentary anxiety. The same earthquake striking a city of 30,000 individuals is exceedingly more efficient in delivering evil; destroying buildings, public infrastructure, businesses, and ruining lives that had invested considerable time, money, and emotional capital in a future now obliterated.

        Suffering is not simply violence. Its greatest expression is in dashed hopes. For the sadistically minded, killing your prey produces only momentary enjoyment, a thrill that is over in a flash, but to permit your prey to live through calamity, to weep and lament, to feel anguish over all that was lost, to suffer with injuries, well, that is evil genius.

        Consider then also the increased suffering of beasts wrestled into the service of this early city; the enslaved beasts of labour, the herds bred for slaughter and pointless, bloody sacrifice. Consider the suffering of war horses, run through with spears and left to bleed out on battlefields, or the Ox beaten into submission and destined to spend its entire life walking in a tight circle in the servitude of flour and bread. Think of the polluted rivers and the destruction of natural habitats; forests torn down for construction material, level ground clear-felled for intensive single crop agriculture which has been utterly ruinous to the biodiversity nature craves for.

        Our success has been an environmental nightmare. That single movement from nomadic lifestyle to settlements exploded open the field of potential, more intimate suffering, including the new phenomena of ravenous, virulent diseases (plagues) that spread like wildfire through populations crammed into settlements ringed by high walls erected out of extreme anxiety and fear. All this before we even begin to acknowledge the new phenomena of greed and theft as possessions and inequality became a staple of human civilisation.

        Oh no, human-on-human violence is a tiny, barely perceptible fraction of the suffering the Omnimalevolent Creator let’s fall on us. Map human development and we see a single, unbroken, unstoppable movement toward ever-increasing suffering and environmental destruction. Consult the species that have been wiped from the face of the planet through human expansion. Survey the oceans and the flooded valleys and the drought ridden expanses. Ask the billions of battery hens and encaged sows how good life is since humans rose. Spend a moment to talk to the baby chimpanzee as shampoo is poured into its pried open eyes just so a formula can be tweaked so a human child’s eyes aren’t irritated when she washes her hair. Consider these things as you sip on a cup of tiger penis tea, or enjoy a bowl of piping hot shark fin soup, or take that remedy siphoned from the stomachs of living sun bears holed up in cages a few inches larger than they are.

        Undeniably, our success (internally bloodied and as violent as it has been) has been an environmental nightmare, and if in the odd chance we are, in fact, killing fewer of our own today than yesterday as Pinker so wishfully suggests, it only means there are more of us to pollute and corrupt this planet, and ultimately plough ever faster through her finite resources.

        So you see, your delusion is laid bare. Our communion with suffering is intricate and intimate, deep and pervasive. It is a forever expanding, forever deepening river, guided by the Omnimalevolent Creator; a creature who is elated when the self-deceiving, you, focus on the tiny and the miniscule, the non-existent and the dreamed of, for that, to Him, means you’re blindly readying yourself for what He has in mind.

        Like

      • Wishful thinking indeed. Let’s look again at that which was your last hope to salvage any sense of intellectual integrity in the face of overwhelming evidence to the fact that you knowingly falsified evidence to support your cooked up theory:

        Again, this is your claim: “Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.”

        And this is the only sliver of hope in that article you had to point to to justify your intellectual dishonesty: “and once again you are, predictably, ignoring the meat of the findings: the “compelling historical data.””

        So what “compelling historical data” did the article talk about? Remember. You have to prove that the “compelling historical data” has to point to ASSURED, GUARANTEED civilization collapse. But does the article actually say anything remotely close to what you claimed it says? Let’s see what that paragraph in the article actually says:

        “the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to “precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common.”

        So it’s “compelling historical data” that shows a recurrent cycle found throughout history. Not THE recurrent cycle. Just A recurrent cycle.

        It then says: “Cases of severe civilisational disruption… have been quite common.” So how does this vindicate your intentional deception? Where does it prove ASSURED and GUARANTEED civilization collapse? Nowhere. There are lots of things that are “quite common” but “quite common” is not the same as ASSURED, or GUARANTEED to affect everyone. Yet, this is PRECISELY what you had to prove (remember? “Suffering is GUARANTEED, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is ALWAYS increased over time.” – your words, with my emphasis).

        It is clear beyond doubt that the article does not say what you claim it says. “compelling historical data” of a “a recurrent cycle found throughout history” and “quite common” civilization collapse is not even remotely close to what you had to demonstrate (ie. “Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.”).

        No amount of rhetorical acrobatics on your part can bridge the massive chasm between what you WISH the article said, and what the article actually said. But you know what, even if the article did say that our civilization is guaranteed to collapse (which it doesn’t), you still have all your work ahead of you to show how such collapse would reverse THOUSANDS OF YEARS of decline in violence. At most, it would reverse 20-50 years. Not thousands of years. Though you WISH this was the case – to salvage the little sliver of hope you have to prove you debunked and fraudulent theory – it’s just not going to happen.

        In any case, I see no point debating you any further. As I’ve already demonstrated beyond doubt, your theory has zero predictive value, and you have zero intellectual integrity. So enjoy your grand delusion.

        Like

      • Well, if we needed any more evidence of how emotionally crippled you are, we now have it. Tell me, just how much sleep have you been losing over all this?

        To address your yapping: “Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.” Yes, that is a sentence I wrote in passing while outlining a much, much broader subject which you are, of course, ignoring because you have no counter to it. Regardless, let’s dash your little semantic game once and for all. What it seems you’re utterly desperate to get out there is this: “But.” That is to say, “But there’s a glimmer of hope if we do X, Y, Z.” Now seriously, which part of “We. Aren’t. Doing. Any. Of. Y. Y. Z” don’t you get?

        Now, I’d suggest you actually read the study yourself, rather than basing your entire inane diatribe on a 989 word article about the study. That’s usually how informed folk go about things.

        http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/2014-03-18-handy1-paper-draft-safa-motesharrei-rivas-kalnay.pdf

        Here is part of studies summary:

        Collapses of even advanced civilizations have occurred many times in the past five thousand years, and they were frequently followed by centuries of population and cultural decline and economic regression. Although many different causes have been offered to explain individual collapses, it is still necessary to develop a more general explanation. In this paper we attempt to build a simple mathematical model to explore the essential dynamics of interaction between population and natural resources. It allows for the two features that seem to appear across societies that have collapsed: the stretching of resources due to strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity, and the division of society into Elites (rich) and Commoners (poor).

        In sum, the results of our experiments, discussed in section 6, indicate that either one of the two features apparent in historical societal collapse – over-exploitation of natural resources and strong economic stratification – can independently result in a complete collapse. Given economic stratification, collapse is very difficult to avoid and requires major policy changes., including major reductions in inequality and population growth rates. Even in the absence of economic stratification, collapse can still occur if depletion per capita is too high. However, collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resoureces are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion.

        So, we have the first guaranteed cause of collapse occurring due to “strong economic stratification.” Now, low and beyond, you rather conveniently ignored my request for data which shows the wealth gap decreasing. Of course, you cannot produce such data because we both know such data does not exist. Not only is the wealth gap widening exponentially, it is doing so at a faster and faster rate every year. Oh dear. And then we have the second guaranteed cause for collapse being rapid “depletion of natural resources.” Now, are you seriously going to try and argue that we’re extracting natural resources in a viable and sustainable manner? Perhaps you can tell me how many coal-fired plants are being built in China next week and where that coal is coming from, or maybe you’d like to detail the wonders of new leaching techniques, and while you’re at it, let’s hear about fracking. What about water resources, arable land, and clean air? Would you like to discuss how these things are all peachy and being managed by corporations who have our best interests at heart?

        I’m afraid to say, but there’s your fretful, fractious, specious screed shot down in flames.

        Now, congratulations on completely and entirely ignoring the latter argument as presented. It’s damaging, I understand, when it’s laid out so visibly. It hurts you, and for that I do apologise. Putting your hands over your ears and screaming “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah” won’t, however, make the truth disappear, so it seems I have to repeat myself:

        Suffering is not simply violence. Its greatest expression is in dashed hopes. For the sadistically minded, killing your prey produces only momentary enjoyment, a thrill that is over in a flash, but to permit your prey to live through calamity, to weep and lament, to feel anguish over all that was lost, to suffer with injuries, well, that is evil genius…. And if in the odd chance we are, in fact, killing fewer of our own today than yesterday as Pinker so wishfully suggests, it only means there are more of us to pollute and corrupt this planet, and ultimately plough ever faster through her finite resources.

        And with this in mind, I would suggest you just leave this alone. For your fragile, delicate disposition the implications of this subject are evidently too ghastly, too awful, too offensive, too unthinkable for you to continue and hope to retain some feeble grasp on your sanity. As it is, you’re already far too traumatised by this experience, so for your own health, withdraw into that netherworld where tranquilising daydreams are sold over polished countertops. Enjoy your comfort foods, tell yourself over and over again that everything is not what it seems, and admire that hand drawn picture of your particular Middle Eastern god; that benevolent architect and superhero to the duplicitous and half-accomplished adventurer.

        Like

      • Oh, Johnny Johnny Johnny. Once again you come to a mental gunfight unarmed. With every comment your predicament becomes clearer.

        You try to rebuild your little debunked theory, building up hope that maybe – just maybe – your fraud would go unnoticed for a little while longer. Though you know perfectly well that your dreams will once again be dashed the moment I reply.

        Perhaps you summarized your own predicament best here: “Suffering is not simply violence. Its greatest expression is in dashed hopes. For the sadistically minded…”

        You see, YOU are the sadistically minded! But you’re not just a sadist – it’s actually much worse. You’re a sadomasochist! You derive some perverse pleasure from being humiliated, and from being exposed as a fraud again and again. That’s why I don’t want to continue this perverse show of yours. So let me tell you this in the most friendly manner possible: John, you need to get help!

        Now let’s look at what’s left of that sorry thing you call a theory. So ones again, this is what you claimed your “theory” predicted:

        “Suffering is guaranteed, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time.”

        Then you said this about the article you cited:

        “Just yesterday NASA released a report that ASSURED our civilisation will collapse. Guaranteed.”

        Thus, it is evident that for you to demonstrate your point you have to show that the world is designed in such a way that it is IMPOSSIBLE for living beings (and humans in particular) to understand the world they live in, to make predictions about possible destructive scenarios, and then to act based on these predictions so they can avoid the destruction (thus making life flourish). Now, granted, your theory predicts that we CAN make predictions about coming disasters (because supposedly that magnifies our suffering). However, you have to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to act based on our predictions. Because if we CAN act on our predictions, and avoid the coming destruction, then suffering is NOT guaranteed, and must NOT always increase. That’s what you had to show (and obviously what you miserably failed at).

        Now don’t pretend like this is some sort of a semantic game we’re playing. Unless you can demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to act in a way that avoids destruction you cannot substantiate your fictitious claim that: “Suffering is GUARANTEED, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is ALWAYS increased over time.”

        So let’s look again at the quotes you posted from the article, that you claimed showed “compelling historical data” which supposedly says that a “rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history”:

        “In this paper we attempt to build a simple mathematical model to explore the essential dynamics of interaction between population and natural resources. It allows for the two features that seem to appear across societies that have collapsed: the stretching of resources due to strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity, and the division of society into Elites (rich) and Commoners (poor).”

        So here we see scientists making a simple mathematical model that can EXPLAIN the rise and collapse of societies and PREDICT when another collapse is likely. What we also see is that this is an ECONOMIC model – it is based on how society is structured and how resources are used. Thus, the underlying cause which explains 100% of the data is the ECONOMIC (capitalist) structure of society. So far so good.

        Let’s also take a look at some of your claims for increased suffering:

        “…Consider then also the increased suffering of beasts wrestled into the service of this early city; the enslaved beasts of labour, the herds bred for slaughter and pointless, bloody sacrifice. Consider the suffering of war horses, run through with spears and left to bleed out on battlefields, or the Ox beaten into submission and destined to spend its entire life walking in a tight circle in the servitude of flour and bread. Think of the polluted rivers and the destruction of natural habitats; forests torn down for construction material, level ground clear-felled for intensive single crop agriculture which has been utterly ruinous to the biodiversity nature craves for.”

        Once again, the underlying cause which explains 100% of your claims is the ECONOMIC (capitalist) structure of society.

        Since all the suffering you outlined is an intrinsic property of our economic structure (and it is, all 100% of it), then you have to demonstrate that our current economic structure is UNALTERABLE – that it is divinely enforced. But our economic structure is not unalterable or divinely enforced. Which means that once there is a better economic paradigm, which resolves the issues above, and puts humanity (as well as other living beings and the environment) on a path to sustained growth and prosperity (thus forever breaking the cycle of rise-and-collapse of civilizations), then it is only a matter of time until it is universally adopted. Yet, you have to prove that this CANNOT be (remember, you have to show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to act in a way that avoids destruction)!

        Now, incidentally, the same exact predictions that the article you cited makes were already made by us (on our blog) more than a YEAR in advance (see here: http://www.geopolitics.us/in-depth/4-technologies-that-will-make-your-job-obsolete/ and here: http://www.geopolitics.us/12-capitalist-myths/). In other words, not only did your little fraudulent claim not impress me in the slightest, it actually affirmed my position. Not only that, but our blog already offers a much better economic paradigm from the current capitalist model (you can see it here: http://www.geopolitics.us/toward-a-flow-economy/).

        Not only does our economic paradigm systamatically resolve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM you outlined here as a cause of greater suffering, but it would also put humanity on a path to SUSTAINED GROWTH and PROSPERITY (something your theory says is IMPOSSIBLE).

        Certainly, it is only a matter of time until this, or any other similar variant of an economic paradigm, is adopted to replace our current model. This will become a reality once the majority of people become aware of the systemic problems inherent in capitalism. Which means that an economic/societal collapse (which certainly will not bring us thousands of years back (as you had to demonstrate), but only a few decades back) is actually the BEST WAY to PRECIPITATE such transition.

        Here’s a little excerpt from our post:

        “Here then we witness a complete paradigm shift in economic theory, as the flow economy systematically resolves the problems inherent in the capitalist system. Instead of appealing to people’s lowest motives – cynicism, nihilism and greed – the flow economy appeals to people’s highest ideals. Instead of being driven by corporate-induced consumerism it is driven by the need to sustain and promote life. Instead of overcompensating those at the top and disparaging those at the bottom it compensates everyone according to their contribution. Instead of being inherently exploitative it treats everyone equitably. And instead of rewarding marketability over merit it rewards us for making meaningful contributions to the world.
        What is equally important, however, is that the flow economy does not resolve the inherent problems of the capitalist system at the expense of productivity, efficiency, motivation to contribute or economic growth – like other economic systems do (Socialism and Communism). Instead, the flow economy resolves these problems while putting us on a path to sustained growth and prosperity.”

        So you see, our economic model completely resolves the unsustainable use of resources, AND the economic disparity between classes. Thus ending the “recurrent cycle” of rise-and-collapse of civilizations (which is at the heart of your claim). It also resolves 100% of the causes of suffering you outlined above. Now unless you demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to EVER transition to some variant of the economic paradigm we outlined (ie. that your malevolent creator would somehow magically intervene in this most natural transition process), your theory is as good as dead.

        Oh, and now the icing on the cake: here is what YOU had to say about our economic paradigm: “I really liked this. In this matter you have a great head, a humanist head, and i pretty much agreed with everything you wrote…” (http://www.geopolitics.us/toward-a-flow-economy/#comment-29910)

        So on the one hand you claim that “Suffering is guaranteed, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time.” But on the other hand you “pretty much agree with everything” we wrote when we demonstrate the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim (because the flow economy resolves 100% of the causes of suffering you pointed to, while putting us on a path to sustained growth and prosperity).

        Once again you find yourself in a catch 22. To salvage what’s left of your intellectual integrity – ie. to prove that you did not lie when you said “suffering is always increased over time” – you have to prove that you lied when you said that you “pretty much agreed with everything” we wrote. If I didn’t know you actually enjoy being humiliated like that I’d be more worried.

        Like

      • Says he’s going to leave, but doesn’t. Repeatedly claims the debate is over, yet keeps coming back for more. I’m sure obsessive-compulsive disorders are a minor favourite of the Omnimalevolent Designer.

        Now, whatever cocktail of delusions you have twisting your mind in little knots, they, collectively, amount to one unignorable fact: you are simply incapable of recognising the scope of the malicious program unleashed by our Wicked Creator. Calm those voices in your head and listen carefully. There must always be hope and progression (real or fantasised); the field of available suffering should always be broadened and deepened. An example will help. Consider medicine. Through observation and ingenuity we have learned how to repair broken bodies and treat certain diseases. Resultantly, lifespans have vastly lengthened. Superficially, this appears to be a victory for mankind, but it is, in fact, wonderful news for the Omnimalevolent Creator and reason to celebrate. More bodies doing more things over a longer time (making ever greater, more expensive investments in the future) is an optimisation of resources. Again, simply killing your prey is not the objective. Thrill-kills lack a certain long-term aesthetic beauty. Far, far more sadistic pleasure can be siphoned from one’s prey if one can prolong and deepen that creatures suffering.

        Alas, when you scream hopefully to the air “But we can change!” our Omnimalevolent Creator calmly replies, “Good.” Change and sporadic bursts of development keeps the killing fields fresh and forever plump.

        Now, I suspect you’re frantically hoping I would ignore the rather obvious fact that you completely and utterly failed to address my requests for you to show data that the wealth gap is moving in any direction other than further and faster apart, and evidence that resources are being managed in a sustainable and viable manner. Such denial is the anticipated and predictable behaviour of the severely delusional… As is fantasising about reality. “Our blog already offers a much better economic paradigm from the current capitalist model.” Good for you! It’s a pleasant dream, a fine panacea for the naïve and gullible, a worthy distraction, although the flaw in your reasoning is that you have categorically failed to comprehend that Corporatism killed Capitalism decades ago. You see, your mind is so twisted, so deluded, so confounded and confused by unicorns and rainbows that you don’t even know your enemy.

        Let me spell this out for you: your “plan” is not real. It exists on paper, just like a letter to Santa Claus exists on paper. It cannot be tasted, smelled, touched or heard. It is a fantasy posted on a blog which gets no visitors; a vaporous daydream launched on a kite. It is also just one of countless other pleas (prayers) people far smarter than you, and with far greater influence, have previously proposed and, I’m sure, will continue to propose. And yes, I do appreciate your efforts, but appreciating something doesn’t mean I can’t also recognise its futility. Communism looks great on paper, the early Christians described in Acts were practicing Communists, but human nature will always negate its full realisation. The honest observer, the impartial witness, has but one duty: to open the shutter and let the photons pour in, uncensored, and despite what the voices in your head are telling you, I’m not a publicist for the Omnimalevolent Creator; just His chronicler.

        So allow me to reiterate: simply killing your prey is not a rational objective. Wholesale destruction, while pleasurable to the Owner of All Infernal Names, is not the ideal expression of the His malicious program; a program that, when functioning optimally, means an accretion of suffering over time. The “hope” you desperately cling to is, of course, a vital part of this accretion. What greater pleasure is there, after all, than letting your prey hope (and plan) for an alternative outcome? That said, as we are doing nothing to close the wealth gap, and nothing to stem our veracious consumption of finite resources (the two things the study says guarantees collapse), it appears collapse is inevitable, and if bedlam does unravel then our Wicked Creator will find great amusement in the flood of pain and anguish that will come.

        Water Wars will be a certain favourite, but such unchecked chaos will ultimately mean an undesirable reduction in the overall size and depth of the canvas available to suffer. While quality of suffering is important, it is quantity, you must appreciate, that is King. If, therefore, stop gap measures are put in place and we, as a species, delay another colossal, civilisation-wrecking collapse then the Omnimalevolent Creator will be relieved. Our jail cell will remain dangerously overcrowded (and getting worse by the year), and resources will continue to be exhausted at a faster and faster rate. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, true power will continue to be squeezed into fewer and fewer corporate hands, and our last hope, an effective public media, will vanish behind reality TV and politically expedient sound bites designed to divide and distract. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of species are being wiped forever from the face of the planet, the oceans are being bleached, the chemistry of the atmosphere is being altered, and four billion hysterically eager human beings are swiftly moving into an economic bracket resembling a middle class… and these four billion will demand new homes and protein rich diets, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, chemical cleaning products, cars and tupperware.

        And so again: when you scream like a traumatised child “But we can change!” our Omnimalevolent Creator calmly replies, “Good.”

        Like

      • “Now, whatever cocktail of delusions you have twisting your mind in little knots, they, collectively, amount to one unignorable fact: you are simply incapable of recognising the scope of the malicious program unleashed by our Wicked Creator. Calm those voices in your head and listen carefully. There must always be hope and progression (real or fantasized);”

        Sorry, but you completely FAILED to demonstrate what was absolutely necessary for your theory to have any merit, which is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to act in a way that avoids destruction and puts us on a path to prosperity. You also FAILED to demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE (not unlikely, not improbable, but impossible) for an better economic paradigm to substitute for our current one. You see, you have to prove that though we may be hopeful, there is in fact no hope, since suffering MUST ALWAYS increase. But you did not prove that there is in fact no hope. You merely made an unsubstantiated claim to that effect.

        You danced around the idea, but presented nothing but your own sadistic dreams. Nothing more than wishful thinking. To substantiate your fictitious claim you gave example of medicine supposedly only prolonging suffering. A premise I have already THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED (see here http://www.geopolitics.us/proving-god-exists/#comment-29915). Which means that you’re still at square one. You have not demonstrated a thing, and your theory is bunk.

        “Alas, when you scream hopefully to the air “But we can change!” our Omnimalevolent Creator calmly replies, “Good.” Change and sporadic bursts of development keeps the killing fields fresh and forever plump.”

        Again. Completely unsubstantiated wishful thinking from a sadist.

        “Now, I suspect you’re frantically hoping I would ignore the rather obvious fact that you completely and utterly failed to address my requests for you to show data that the wealth gap is moving in any direction other than further and faster apart, and evidence that resources are being managed in a sustainable and viable manner.”

        I demonstrated a far GREATER and more significant point; that the whole “rise-and-collapse of civilizations” model is obsolete, since economic paradigms can change (and do change). You, on the other hand, did not demonstrate the impossibility of this inevitable scenario (though demonstrating this is what your entire theory hinges on!). All you presented was your own sadistic wishful thinking. Unsubstantiated by any evidence but a claim that was already thoroughly debunked. Unfortunately that’s not enough.

        “Our blog already offers a much better economic paradigm from the current capitalist model.” Good for you! It’s a pleasant dream, a fine panacea for the naïve and gullible, a worthy distraction”

        So now I take it you admit that you lied after you already asserted that you pretty much agree with everything the theory stated. Good.

        If you now think this economic paradigm (or ANY OTHER similar one) cannot work I’d like to see the economic reasoning behind this baseless assertion. Obviously you cannot do that since you know nothing about economics. Empty rhetoric just doesn’t cut. It won’t make the facts go away.

        “although the flaw in your reasoning is that you have categorically failed to comprehend that Corporatism killed Capitalism decades ago. You see, your mind is so twisted, so deluded, so confounded and confused by unicorns and rainbows that you don’t even know your enemy.”

        Don’t see how such baseless claim is even remotely relevant to our economic paradigm. Again, you think rhetoric can substitute for substance, but it cannot. You’re simply incapable of addressing the issue, and that’s why you’re dancing around it, trying to divert attention from your incompetence.

        “Let me spell this out for you: your “plan” is not real. It exists on paper, just like a letter to Santa Claus exists on paper. It cannot be tasted, smelled, touched or heard. It is a fantasy posted on a blog which gets no visitors; a vaporous daydream launched on a kite. It is also just one of countless other pleas (prayers) people far smarter than you, and with far greater influence, have previously proposed and, I’m sure, will continue to propose. And yes, I do appreciate your efforts, but appreciating something doesn’t mean I can’t also recognise its futility. Communism looks great on paper, the early Christians described in Acts were practicing Communists, but human nature will always negate its full realization.”

        Again. Nothing but empty rhetoric. You have not presented a SINGLE argument against the economic paradigm, nor have you demonstrated that it is IMPOSSIBLE (not improbable, but impossible!) for this, or any other variant of such economic paradigm to take hold.

        Yet that is precisely what you had to prove – the IMPOSSIBILITY of it taking hold. You have to DEMONSTRATE the futility of our hopes, not just baselessly assert that. The fact that you cannot do it proves beyond doubt that your theory of a malevolent creator is beyond hope. It’s done, and I’m afraid that at this point there is no way to resuscitate it.

        “The honest observer, the impartial witness, has but one duty: to open the shutter and let the photons pour in, uncensored, and despite what the voices in your head are telling you, I’m not a publicist for the Omnimalevolent Creator; just His chronicler.”

        No. You’re just projecting your own sadomasochism onto the outside world.

        “So allow me to reiterate: simply killing your prey is not a rational objective. Wholesale destruction, while pleasurable to the Owner of All Infernal Names, is not the ideal expression of the His malicious program; a program that, when functioning optimally, means an accretion of suffering over time.”

        You can reiterate all you want. But at this point it is nothing more than your own wishful thinking. You miserably failed at demonstrating what you had to demonstrate. You failed to show the IMPOSSIBILITY of having an alternative economic paradigm. All you did was a lot of hand-waving. But that’s not quite the same as a logical proof. Which means that your theory is done.

        Like

      • You are precious. Let me remind you that despite my efforts to discuss the grander model and methods of our Wicked Creator, you chose to be utterly fixated on the study Human and Nature Dynamics: Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies which identified two inescapable causes of civilizational collapse; strong economic stratification and depletion of natural resources. Like the obsessive-compulsive, sleep-deprived person you so clearly are, you invested your entire argument on what I’d considered a fleeting side-note, and yet when I finally relented and asked you to demonstrate that the study’s two primary measures weren’t pointing to collapse you placed your hands over your ears and hollered, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah…. But we can change. I have a magical Age-of-Aquarius plan, and if anyone will just listen to me….” Priceless!

        So, do tell me, why can’t you produce the necessary data to prove the study’s conclusions wrong? Might it be because such data doesn’t exist? Might it be because the data that does exist tells a rather ghastly story?

        My deluded friend, the Human and Nature Dynamics model (which you were so very keen to focus on a day ago, but now wish it’d just go away) proves cyclic civilizational collapse and gives the reasons. I don’t have to “personally” prove anything, and I especially don’t have to present an analysis on your fantasy economics. History is my proof, and that history is recorded rather thoroughly in the study… How about you try reading it, rather than whining like a tantrum-throwing child.

        Hilariously though, you just don’t get it. Your severe delusional state is inhibiting you from reading the words presented to you. Pay attention: Our Omnimalevolent Creator isn’t overly interested in a total civilizational collapse. The study’s conclusions are, in reality, a cause for minor concern. Should a collapse occur, and everything is pointing to just that, then yes, it’ll be a thrilling decade or two of uncut mayhem, but you must appreciate that it’d also represent a deviation from the grander objective of maximising pain over time. Now granted, the plan is flexible, good plans always are, but the chaos which threatens could well result in a severe reduction in the overall field and depth of potential suffering. Should our species bomb itself back to the Stone Age, it’ll take a millennia (should any of us actually survive) to re-stock the Omnimalevolent Creators breeding ponds with his favourite instruments of pleasure. Whole new human civilisations will have to be reared and prepared through habituation, and that takes a great deal of time.

        To repeat my earlier example: an earthquake striking a clan of 30 (newly minted) nomadic hunter-gatherers produces, at best, only fear and momentary anxiety. The same earthquake striking a city of 30,000 individuals is exceedingly more efficient in delivering evil; destroying buildings, public infrastructure, businesses, and ruining lives that had invested considerable time, money, and emotional capital in a future now obliterated. That same earthquake then striking a city of 30,000,000 is, well, you do the math…. And when you’re done with the calculations you tell me which scenario would best suit the desires of a debased architect.

        Now seriously, leave this alone. Give your neighbours a break from your frantic keyboard banging. Walk away. You’re just not cut out for the truth.

        Like

      • Sorry, but I’ve already proved that the “rise-and-collapse” of civilizations model is obsolete. My proof is based exactly on the “compelling historic data” that the study presented – on the fact that both the use of resources and the stratification of society is 100% depended on the economic structure. And since economic structures are not unalterable, and there is an economic paradigm that resolves ALL the fundamental problems that cause the “rise-and-collapse,” such paradigm will INEVITABLY replace our current one. For your theory to survive, you had to prove that this is IMPOSSIBLE, and such proof is nowhere to be found. Since you miserably failed at that your theory is now dead.

        You continue to cling to the hope that, even though it’s been demonstrated to be obsolete, maybe the “rise-and-collapse” model would still produce one more civilization collapse (which would bring us a few decades back). An utterly meaningless point, given that such collapse would necessarily precipitate the shift to an economic paradigm that would once and for all render the whole “rise-and-collapse” model forever obsolete.

        So to recap, If suffering must ALWAYS increase than a shift in economic paradigms that eliminates the “rise-and-collapse” model must be IMPOSSIBLE.. Yet you utterly FAILED to demonstrate that a shift in economic paradigms is IMPOSSIBLE – which was the life support of your little theory. All the hand-waving in the world cannot substitute for the necessary logical proof you failed to produce. Which means that your theory is dead.

        Your claim about natural disasters (such as earthquakes) killing more and more life has been already THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED as well (see here: http://www.geopolitics.us/proving-god-exists/#comment-29911). Yet you return to the same obsolete claims out of sheer desperation to revive your dead theory. I understand that, the world can be very cruel sometimes to someone as deluded as yourself.

        My condolences for the death of your little theory.

        Like

      • And once again, you are simply failing to see what is before your very eyes. You’re so hysterical, so desperate, so carelessly determined to scream the word (all caps) “impossible,” that you are missing the point that possible or impossible doesn’t matter one bit. It’s a sideshow in the larger game. If collapse happens, as the study concludes it will (a conclusion, I remind you, you are flatly incapable of countering by presenting any tangible, real-world evidence to the contrary), then our Omnimalevolent Creator will rejoice in the anguish. This celebration, though, will be a bitter-sweet occasion, as a worse case socioeconomic calamity will wipe-out a thousand years of careful habituation.

        Here, I’ll write this really, really slowly as it’s so painfully apparent that you cannot read and comprehend what’s written at any natural, adult speed: a total civilizational collapse is not, I repeat, not in the greater interest of the Owner of All Infernal Names. Read that again, if you must. Let it sink in. Is that now clear? Good. Now, a minor collapse would, however, be tremendously more appealing, and if humans could recover quickly from the set-back, then wonderful! What short-term losses in the greater portfolio of pain could be recovered with limited devaluation in the overall marketplace of suffering.

        I must say though, you are hopelessly charming with your fluffy dreams and carefully drawn plans which exist only in your head. Just keep telling yourself what you want to hear, and be sure to keep tweaking your little Age of Aquarius manifesto. Our Omnimalevolent Creator loves it when His playthings hope for a better future. In fact, He appreciates such efforts so much that He even endorses some promising plans and permits them to be implemented across His creation. The marketplace of pain has to be kept vibrant, afresh, expanding, and naïvely hopeful, after all.

        Like

      • Once again, my condolences on the death of your theory. I see that you’re now in the denial stage of your grieving, and that is perfectly understandable. Eventually you will get to the stage of acceptance. But until then, in case you have any doubt, let me make this clear: your theory is dead. It is no more. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-theory.

        Now don’t think that it was I who killed your theory. That is simply not the case. Like all poorly thought out ideas, your sociopathic fantasy came into the world stillborn. Its predictions only applied to the void that is between your two ears. All that was left for me to do was to pronounce it dead at the scene.

        Your theory predicted that suffering must ALWAYS increase over time. Which means that, by definition, it must be impossible (not unlikely, not improbable, but impossible!) for suffering NOT to always increase over time. And since this must be impossible, then there cannot be true hope for that which is impossible – only false hope.

        Since this is what your theory stated, you had to be able to prove this. There was simply no skirting around this issue for you. If no proof exists, your theory is deceased.

        Now, to support your fraudulent claim (to show that suffering must always increase), you cited an article which showed “compelling historical data” that a “rise-and-collapse of civilizations” is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history. The underlying cause, which explains 100% of the data, is the ECONOMIC (capitalist) structure of society. It is based on how society is structured and how resources are used.

        However, as I’ve demonstrated, there IS an economic paradigm that resolves ALL the underlying causes of the rise-and-collapse cycle. Thus PERMANENTLY putting civilization on a path to sustain growth and prosperity. In fact, this economic paradigm also resolves 100% (ONE. HUNDRED. PERCENT.) of the examples you cited as representing increase in suffering over time. Thus PERMANENTLY eliminating all those as well. You had to be able to prove that it is impossible (not unlikely, not improbable, but impossible!) for this OR ANY OTHER(!) variant of such economic paradigm to EVER(!) take hold. Yet, you utterly failed at doing that. Now there is no one for you to blame but yourself.

        So let me make this clear once more: there was absolutely no skirting around this issue for you. You had to prove why this is impossible. Empty rhetoric is no substitute for a proof. Hysterical hand-waving is no substitute for a proof. Special pleading is no substitute. Wishful thinking is no substitute. Repeating the same old debunked claims over and over is no substitute. Wishing the facts go away (ie. saying: “possible or impossible doesn’t matter one bit”) is no substitute. ONLY presenting a well-reasoned logical argument for why this was impossible could have saved your little theory. And yet, you failed at providing this proof. Spectacularly, I might add. You also managed to lose in the process whatever was left of your self-respect by showing that you lied when you said that you practically agreed with everything our economic paradigm stated. So once again: if no proof exists, your theory is deceased. My condolences.

        Like

      • I see you favour the same methods practiced by the Tea Party Conservatives in the US: repeat nonsense long enough and eventually you’ll convince yourself of its validity.

        “However, as I’ve demonstrated, there IS an economic paradigm that resolves ALL the underlying causes of the rise-and-collapse cycle”

        LOL! Are you referring to your Rainbow and Unicorns, Age of Aquarius thought exercise? Cute.

        Now do tell me, why do you keep avoiding my requests for “real-world” data which disputes the two inescapable causes of civilizational collapse: strong economic stratification and depletion of natural resources? While you’re at it, perhaps you could also provide hard data for how we, as a species, are curtailing our exponential population growth… you know, that upwards curve which almost perfectly mirrors the explosive population blooms of unsuccessful parasites.

        Like

      • Sorry, but excuses and diversions are also no substitute for the proof you must provide.

        “Now do tell me, why do you keep avoiding my requests for “real-world” data which disputes the two inescapable causes of civilizational collapse: strong economic stratification and depletion of natural resources?”

        Because it’s a waste of my time. And it won’t help your case one bit. You have to demonstrate the impossibility(!) of permanently eliminating the rise-and-collapse cycle. Which, as I’ve already demonstrated will inevitably happen. Soon.

        “While you’re at it, perhaps you could also provide hard data for how we, as a species, are curtailing our exponential population growth… you know, that upwards curve which almost perfectly mirrors the explosive population blooms of unsuccessful parasites.”

        Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

        So again: if no proof exists, your theory is deceased.

        Like

      • Cute. A TED Talk where Hans Rosling details the things that “should” be done to stem our out-of-control population bloom… Namely, raising the living standards of the poorest. Let’s see, how about you now do the math of moving six or seven billion people into a new middle class in the next 100 years, and how that’ll affect global resource consumption. Be sure to get back to me with your results, OK.

        So, let me get this straight: It’s a “waste of your time” to present real world data which contradicts the current state of play of the two inescapable causes of civilizational collapse: strong economic stratification and depletion of natural resources. LOL! That’s thoroughly precious. You can evade, neglect, avoid and deny reality all you like, but do try and understand that rational adults, mature human beings who’re in control of their faculties and sanity do their best to live within the boundaries of reality…. That is to say, they inhabit the real world, where facts and hard data matter.

        Like

      • Nice try, but you cannot escape the inescapable. No proof means no theory.

        It looks like, for some inexplicable reason, you’re still under the delusion that your little sociopathic fantasy reflected something in reality. It didn’t.

        When a person is so deeply self-deluded perhaps there’s really no alternative but to seek professional help. But let’s see what I can do to disabuse you of your nightmare.

        You see, if your theory predicted that suffering sometimes increases and at other times decreases then there would be no problem. If you added that decrease in suffering is in direct proportion to our understanding of the laws that govern the world and the laws that govern life, and our adherence to these laws, then your theory would have been golden.

        But unfortunately that is not what your theory stated. Your theory stated that suffering is always increased over time – which means that this trend is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world. And so, you had to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.

        And where did you demonstrate this? Nowhere. Such proof is nowhere to be found. Or, to quote you, your proof “is invisible and inaudible. It gives off no odour and has no perceptible taste. It cannot be detected with any instrument and no measurement of any natural phenomena has ever indicated its presence.”

        All your hysterical attempts to divert attention, all your excuses, all your empty rhetoric aimed at misleading and mischaracterizing the debate cannot substitute for the proof that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world. Since such proof does not exist, your theory is deceased.

        All the carefully curated examples you so yearn to present as claims in support of your theory are nothing of that sort. In fact, all the claims you’ve made that supposedly support your theory are already one hundred percent explained and predicted within the framework of the market economy. Yes, the market economy is ineffective at solving big problems; population growth, climate change, distribution of resources, social justice, and so on and so on (we’ve already demonstrated this here: http://www.geopolitics.us/solving-big-problems/), therefore these can lead to increase in suffering. But how does that fact help you in any way to substantiate your claim that this is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world? For that to be the case our current economic paradigm MUST be permanent and unalterable. But of course it isn’t.

        And of course, as I’ve already demonstrated, there is an economic paradigm that resolves 100% of the issues you’ve raised, and all the underlying causes for our current challenges. Thus, this or any other similar paradigm will PERMANENTLY eliminate ALL the claims you’ve made that are supposed to be the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world. Where is your proof that adopting ANY such paradigm is impossible? Nowhere. Yet, you had to prove just that.

        As much as you’d like to limit the discussion to what might happen tomorrow, in ten years, or in 25 years – ALL of which, without exception, is already perfectly explained by the current capitalistic economic paradigm (a point which you obviously cannot, and did not, challenge), that says nothing about what will happen 100, 500, 1000, or 10,000 years from now. Where is your proof that the trends you pointed to will continue (even though the underlying causes for these can easily be eliminated with a better economic paradigm). You had to prove that the trend of increased suffering must continue indefinitely. So where did you prove this? Nowhere. No proof means no theory.

        Like

      • “No proof”? LOL! I’ve been bombarding you with real world proof and patently easy to understand working examples since you lost your mind over four months ago. And now you’re just all over the shop; your thoughts wondering from one imperfect screed to the next, babbling incoherently like a madman rocking back and forth in foetus position, repeating the same nonsensical mantra over and over again. Funny how you now don’t want to talk about the two inescapable causes of civilizational collapse: strong economic stratification and depletion of natural resources. Funny how you can’t produce any contradictory real world data that paints some alternative outcome. Funny how you also evaded showing how moving six or seven billion people into a middle class in the next 100 years will result in better, more sustainable resource management.

        Again, ignoring reality doesn’t make it go away.

        And true to form, your deluded state of mind has once again crippled you from actually understanding the nature and genius of the malicious program underwriting our Omnimalevolent Creators greater works. Time after time you have refused to acknowledge that which is being said to you. Time after time you have seen only that which you have wanted to see and have answered that which was never asked. Such is the behaviour of an insane person; a broken mind living inside a fantasy world, slaying imaginary dragons, and always winning the girl. [all caps, exclamation mark]

        And so, here it is again: total civilizational collapse is not in our Omnimalevolent Creators best interest. Does the clever trader wish for a complete market collapse? Of course, there is great opportunity when markets do collapse, the astute investor can always capitalise on distressed stocks, but overall, the mindful broker’s best interests are served by a general ballooning of the greater marketplace over time. Isolated setbacks, bankruptcies, and short-term profit taking will see the market fluctuate, but if the general trend is up, then all is well in the world. More bodies, doing more things, over a longer time means the portfolio of potential pain and suffering is not only increasing, but diversifying.

        Now listen carefully: the fantasy argument going on inside you already far too noisy head refuses to acknowledge the words “general trend.” You’re so desperate to scream about total market collapse that you are simply imagining that that is what we’re talking about. We’re not. I’ve never said it because as an objective it contradicts our Omnimalevolent Creators malicious program.

        And so, for the third time, here is an easy to understand example of how the “general trend” looks in the real world: an earthquake striking a clan of 30 nomadic hunter-gatherers produces, at best, only fear and momentary anxiety. The same earthquake striking a city of 30,000 urbanised individuals is exceedingly more efficient in delivering evil; killing many but, more importantly, destroying buildings, public infrastructure, businesses, and ruining lives that had invested considerable time, money, and emotional capital in a future now obliterated. That same earthquake then striking a city of 30,000,000 is, well, you do the math…. And when you’re done with the calculations you tell me which scenario would best suit the desires of a debased architect.

        Like

      • At this point you’re beyond desperate, John. And clearly only professional help will do. But as I’ve explained to you too many times already, no proof means no theory. There is no escaping this.

        It looks like now you’re just playing for time. You think you can con your way out of this but you cannot. All your misdirections and diversions are completely transparent. So your new scam is SAYING that you’ve already provided the proof? How adorable. Where is it then? Please present it in verbal form. Sorry, but saying that you provided a proof is also no substitute for a proof.

        What, your “earthquake argument” is your proof?! Well then you admit that you have no proof then. Good. Your earthquake argument has already been thoroughly debunked – months ago. And yet, you keep returning to it again and again. Perhaps in the hope that no one would notice your fraud. Sorry, that’s just not going to happen. Your fraud has long been exposed.

        Like

      • Tell me, can you tell if those voices in your head are you own, or do you really hear different individuals speaking; some chastising you for never addressing the arguments as presented with real world data, while others cheer the hallucinations on, forever whispering, “you’re not insane, you’re not insane, you’re not insane, oh no… everyone else is”?

        But by all means, if you can quiet those voices in your head for a moment, please do refresh my obviously shaky memory: how did you debunk the earthquake example, and how, precisely, did you do it “months ago” when I first only penned it on the 7th of June, five days ago?

        Like

      • The sense of panic in your words is palpable, but your inability to produce a proof says it all.

        You still don’t get it, do ya? Everyone is familiar with the “real world data” you presented. Population growth, climate change, social stratification, resource misuse, economic collapse, and so on. With all of it. And all 100% of this “real world data” is already perfectly explained in the context of the market economy. There is nothing new here.

        So you can continue screaming at the top of your lungs “real world data,” but please do tell me, how does the “real world data” you presented help in any way to substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world? How does it prove that the same trend will continue indefinitely? There is no logical connection between the two. Such link only exists in your mind – in your sociopathic fantasies.

        So do forgive me if I’m not impressed by your desperate, hysterical attempts to divert attention from your colossal failure to prove this connection. Your fraud has already been exposed. No proof means no theory.

        Like

      • It’s getting harder and harder to even know what you’re babbling on about. What precisely does “And all 100% of this ‘real world data’ is already perfectly explained in the context of the market economy” even mean? Are you expressing surprise that the real world generates streams of real data? Now , you see, you’ve also completely lost me here as I’m almost certain it was me asking you to present evidence which contradicted the nasty-ugly picture of the current state of play of the two inescapable causes of civilizational collapse: strong economic stratification and depletion of natural resources. Be sure to correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I could gather, the extent of your evasive (data-less) argument seemed to rest on “But JZ, you can’t predict the future” [all caps, exclamation mark/s].

        Now, while true, I cannot predict the future, I can draw fairly accurate assumptions on what the near future will hold based on a litany of hard evidence collected in the present and collated from the past. This is called pattern-mapping, and it’s through this socioeconomic cartographic art that an impartial observer can go about identifying the malicious program unleashed by our Omnimalevolent Creator.

        Interestingly, but not at all surprisingly, you seem to have completely evaded addressing the earthquake example which you allege to have debunked months before I even invented it. That’s a shame. I was truly looking forward to your explanation for this clearly magical happening. Did the voices tell you to avoid it? Do they caution you when they sense you’re backing yourself into a corner? Now you also failed to acknowledge the sturdiness of the astute investor analogy. Did that one utterly confound you, too?

        Like

      • I’ll answer all of your questions (aka diversion tactics) once you answer this simple question:

        How does the “real world data” you presented help in any way to substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world? (Which is what your theory predicted – ie. that suffering ALWAYS increases over time)

        Or should I understand that your claim that you cannot predict the future (but you can “draw fairly accurate assumptions on what the near future will hold based on a litany of hard evidence collected in the present and collated from the past”) is nothing but a silent admission that you cannot substantiate your claim that suffering ALWAYS increases over time? After all, such sweeping assertions, such extraordinary claims, must be substantiated with extraordinary evidence.

        You argument right now amounts to saying that cellphones are impossible because you have collected “real world data” based on “a litany of hard evidence” from the past 13 billion years that shows that cellphones did not exist, and therefore the trend shows that the existence of cellphones is impossible.

        Like

      • Now seriously, what are you babbling on about now? I think you have at least ten (although probably closer to twenty) disorganised conversations raging inside that confused head of yours, and none of them are actually what’s going on here. I didn’t ask any questions; I gave you working examples of our Omnimalevolent Creators malicious program in action. As a side matter, you went merrily driving off into the Human and Nature Dynamics model, which, as it turns out, you appear to have seriously regretted as you couldn’t present a single shred of evidence which contradicted the study’s conclusions. But even if you could, which you couldn’t, you proved yourself time after time simply incapable of understanding that total civilizational collapse is not in our Omnimalevolent Creators best interests. To example this I presented you with the astute investor analogy… which you have also ignored.

        Now, what I did do was draw attention to your evasion of actually addressing these examples in any way even resembling something substantial; choosing instead to mutter and mumble on about a basket of staggeringly naïve, but otherwise hopeful Age of Aquarius dreams you have where unicorns surf rainbows, corporations have our best interests at heart, and earth’s finite resources are managed by a combination of Pollyanna and Fraulien Maria.

        Now, Case in point: out of the blue you claimed to have debunked my earthquake example months before I even penned it. Right off the bat, this is fantastic news as it means you have uncovered some way of physically tunnelling through time. But before we get to those wonders, I would be tremendously interested in having my memory refreshed, as I can’t recall you ever presenting any counter argument to that particular example which lays out, quite convincingly I believe, the process of accretion by which the wicked architect (the designer of this world) enjoys greater and greater suffering over time. Again, this is called pattern-mapping which, when used correctly, can assist any impartial observer to unravel the intent underwriting our reality. The rhetorical question posed here was: “when you’re done with the calculations (an earthquake striking, alternatively, 30 hunter gatherers, 30,000 urbanites, or 30,000,000 city dwellers) you tell me which scenario would best suit the desires of a debased architect.”

        Like

      • “you went merrily driving off into the Human and Nature Dynamics model, which, as it turns out, you appear to have seriously regretted as you couldn’t present a single shred of evidence which contradicted the study’s conclusions…
        ..Now, what I did do was draw attention to your evasion of actually addressing these examples in any way even resembling something substantial;”

        If there is one thing I learned from debating you, it is that you’re a master at wasting other people’s time. You wanted me to produce evidence against an argument that was going nowhere, while I saw no reason to do so. I already demonstrated that your argument did not prove what you had to prove, but you conveniently ignored this and plowed on with your nonsense.

        So let’s try this one more time. Read this very slowly if you need to. Maybe read it three or four times. Use a dictionary if necessary:

        How does the “real world data” (or the Human and Nature Dynamics model) you presented help in any way to substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world? (Which is what your theory predicted – ie. that suffering ALWAYS increases over time)

        Unless you can explain how this is even remotely relevant to demonstrating what you had to demonstrate, why should I waste my time addressing this argument.

        Once you finally answer that question, which so far you’ve done everything possible to evade (though this is absolutely vital for your theory – while the argument you challenged me to address is entirely trivial for mine), I’ll gladly copy&paste my response from months ago which already thoroughly debunked your “earthquake theorem.” I’ll even expand on my response to your childish fantasy, if you wish.

        Like

      • And there you go again, not actually grasping what’s being discussed. First up, you brought up the Human and Nature Dynamics model in this thread, not me. Only you can therefore explain why, and perhaps present data which contradicts its conclusions. But you see, that doesn’t even matter, and this is where you’re so far off the page it’s seriously not funny… just increasingly tiresome, and with that in mind, I’ll simply repeat what’s already been said:

        total civilizational collapse is not in our Omnimalevolent Creators best interest. Does the clever trader wish for a complete market collapse? Of course, there is great opportunity when markets do collapse, the astute investor can always capitalise on momentarily distressed stocks, but overall, the mindful broker’s best interests are served by a general ballooning of the greater marketplace over time. Isolated setbacks, bankruptcies, and short-term profit taking will see the market fluctuate, but if the general trend is up, then all is well in the world. More bodies, doing more things, over a longer time means the portfolio of potential pain and suffering is not only increasing, but diversifying.

        Now you see, you’re so fixated on some juvenile idea that there cannot be a single deviation in the overall “general trend” that you are simply failing to understand the greater narrative. I’m suspecting this is because you have serious problems with reading and comprehension, so maybe, just maybe, this short video showing the human population bloom might give you a visual reference for the overall (relatively uninterrupted) ballooning of the marketplace of suffering. [each dot represents a million people].

        Like

      • Let me help you with that, as you’re clearly mortified at even thinking about putting these words in print:

        The “real world data” and the “Human and Nature Dynamics model” you presented does NOT – in any way, shape, or form; directly or indirectly – help you to substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world. (Which is what your theory predicted – ie. that suffering ALWAYS increases over time).

        As for this:
        “total civilizational collapse is not in our Omnimalevolent Creators best interest. Does the clever trader wish for a complete market collapse? Of course, there is great opportunity when markets do collapse, the astute investor can always capitalise on momentarily distressed stocks, but overall, the mindful broker’s best interests are served by a general ballooning of the greater marketplace over time. Isolated setbacks, bankruptcies, and short-term profit taking will see the market fluctuate, but if the general trend is up, then all is well in the world. More bodies, doing more things, over a longer time means the portfolio of potential pain and suffering is not only increasing, but diversifying.”

        Here you’ve just undone your own theory. You see, “POTENTIAL” pain and suffering is meaningless. When you play the lottery you’re a “potential” multi-millionaire. But guess what, no one is going to give you the keys to a brand new Ferrari if you present them with your “potential winning ticket.” And then you say: “if the general trend is up, then all is well in the world.”

        Sorry, but if “the general trend is up” then this is the exact opposite of what you had to demonstrate. If only “potential” (aka unrealized) “pain and suffering” is increasing, then this too is the exact opposite of what you had to demonstrate. Only real suffering counts – And THAT, you certainly cannot demonstrate. Thanks for playing though.

        Like

      • So, let me get this straight: you can’t actually see the (relatively) uninterrupted, increasingly complex pattern in that short video?

        Interesting….

        So I guess you can’t therefore comprehend this simple truism: More bodies, doing more things, over a longer time means the portfolio of potential pain and suffering is not only increasing, but diversifying.

        Doubly interesting…

        Like

      • As for your silly earthquake example – this is clearly the product of a linear mind, incapable of processing more than one thought at a time (and apparently even one thought is sometimes too overwhelming for your little brain). So let’s debunk this argument once more (for the fourth time, since you so conveniently ignored my previous three responses):

        Here’s your little toy:

        “when you’re done with the calculations (an earthquake striking, alternatively, 30 hunter gatherers, 30,000 urbanites, or 30,000,000 city dwellers) you tell me which scenario would best suit the desires of a debased architect.”

        Now, remember, you have to demonstrate that suffering ALWAYS increases over time. Not just next year, but also 100 years from now, and 500 years from now. Does your little booboo do that? Nope. And here is why:

        Since your little brain is only capable of entertaining one idea at a time, you failed to realize that population growth is not the only factor that changes over time (in fact, there’s no evidence that a population must ALWAYS grow over time, which your argument implies. The population of China, for example, is expected to decrease to below a billion people by the end of the century). Other things that change is technology, and societal organization structures.

        Because of these confounding factors (and, by the way, you should really look this concept up sometime, maybe you won’t make more kindergarten-level arguments like your current one), you cannot establish any direct correlation between size of population and amount of suffering due to events such as earthquakes. For example, the earthquake that hit Chili a few months after an earthquake hit Haiti was 500 times(!!) stronger. Yet, there were only about 520 killed in Chili and over 150,000 killed in Haiti. Why? Well, it has a lot to do with something called “earthquake resistant engineering.”

        But that’s just the obvious refutation any ten-year-old can give you. Here is where this gets interesting..

        This is what I said three months ago, when you first raised the issue of natural disasters:

        Let’s look at “earthquakes, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, famines and disease.” Well, is any one of these a supernatural event? No. Do they operate by different laws than the laws that govern the world? No. So all these “acts of God” (or acts of Nature) are entirely comprehensible to us. We can understand the underlying conditions, predict their occurrence, and – with ever greater knowledge and understanding of the laws that govern the world – we can not only effectively eliminate their harmful effects on life, but harness these natural occurrences to our own purpose.

        Just consider this fact – the energy released in a day by the average hurricane is about the same as 1/10 of all the energy consumed by humanity in a year. So earthquakes, floods, meteorite strikes etc. are destructive to us in the present (and are not used as sources of energy, as they could be) because humanity has not [yet] mobilized itself to solve these problems (through knowledge and understanding, how else).

        We already have the proven technology for structures to withstand earthquakes. We also already have the technology to generate electricity from vibrations (eg. http://vimeo.com/2503037). You put these together in cities and what do you get? Not only do earthquakes no longer cause any perceptible damage (and thus ZERO increase in suffering), but they generate lots and lots of energy!

        So you see, not only is there no guarantee that suffering will increase over time (which is what you once again failed to demonstrate), but suffering can demonstrably diminish over time (with better knowledge and understanding of the laws that govern the world).

        Once more human ingenuity can transform “potential suffering” into real (aka realized) benefits for humanity. And once again your sociopathic fantasies are shattered.

        Like

      • Precious. Your arguments are so fixated on the miniscule you can’t see the grander picture. I’m used to this mistake, but again, its growing tremendously tiresome. Who cares about the size of earthquakes? Did I say anything at all about magnitudes, or location of the strikes? The example was simply highlighting the increasing potential of suffering caused by any old earthquake, or other natural disaster, striking ever-expanding human population centres. This is historically accurate, as you are fully aware, and reason why you simply refuse to answer the rhetorical question presented to you: which scenario best suits the Wicked Architects larger objectives; an earthquake striking 30 hunter gathers, 30,000 primitive urbanites, or 30,000,000 fixed, modern, dependent city dwellers?

        Here, as it’s clearly so difficult, I’ll answer the question for you: 30,000,000. Thirty-million individual lives filled with hopes and dreams, ambitions and loves; lives ripe for the delivery of complex and multifaceted forms of suffering, from grazed knees to the devastating anguish of a father losing his entire young family.

        Now, your counter-argument rests entirely on future promises of disaster prevention technology. Great! Is anyone claiming such preventative efforts are denied? As the Omnimalevolent Creator wishes there to be more bodies, doing more things, over longer times these efforts are not only welcomed, but encouraged. Preventing wide-scale destruction and massive population extinctions is desirable. How else, my naïve friend, would the Owner of All Infernal Names maximize his enjoyment? How else, my naïve friend, would the Owner of All Infernal Names celebrate the population bloom graphically demonstrated in the video? If our evil creator wished to maximize death alone he would never have allowed medicine to develop and flourish, choosing instead to let virulent diseases ravish forever tiny populations. If our evil creator wished to maximize death alone he would never have permitted agricultural technology and animal husbandry. If our evil creator wished to maximize death alone he would never have approved of the humble keel which vastly increased both the life expectancy of sailors and the scope of navigational possibilities… two things which enabled human settlements to spring up in once inaccessible geographic locations.

        More bodies, doing more things, over longer times.

        To repeat: suffering is not merely violence and death. Its greatest expression is in dashed hopes, enduring pain and anguish, and prolonged anxiety. A human being dying at age 35 cannot, by and large, produce the same quantity, quality and depth of suffering generated through the extended life of a human being dying at age 80 or 90. Thirty years of crippling arthritis and immobility is more valuable to the wicked designer than a single terrified soldier catching a bullet in the throat. Such brutality produces only a momentary thrill which, while pleasurable, pales to protracted torment.

        So you see, our Omnimalevolent Creator wishes for humans (his favourite instruments of pleasure) to continually invent new measures which mean they live longer, superficially safer lives, because that, and that alone, ensures a ballooning and diversification of the overall marketplace of pain.

        More bodies, doing more things, over longer times.

        Like

      • “So I guess you can’t therefore comprehend this simple truism: More bodies, doing more things, over a longer time means the portfolio of potential pain and suffering is not only increasing, but diversifying.

        Doubly interesting…”

        I understand it perfectly. And, as I’ve already pointed out, that is NOT what you had to demonstrate. Remember, you said this: “Suffering is guaranteed, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time.”

        POTENTIAL pain and suffering is meaningless. That is not what your theory predicted. You have to demonstrate that REAL suffering is increased. Always increased, in fact. So please show me where you demonstrate that.

        Like

      • In case you didn’t understand the analogy, read this very very slowly, several times, if necessary:

        “Here you’ve just undone your own theory. You see, “POTENTIAL” pain and suffering is meaningless. When you play the lottery you’re a “potential” multi-millionaire. But guess what, no one is going to give you the keys to a brand new Ferrari if you present them with your “potential winning ticket.””

        Like

      • “Precious. Your arguments are so fixated on the miniscule you can’t see the grander picture. I’m used to this mistake, but again, its growing tremendously tiresome. Who cares about the size of earthquakes? Did I say anything at all about magnitudes, or location of the strikes?”

        As I’ve already demonstrated (four times already), over time not only will technology be able to effectively eliminate any damage done by earthquakes, but earthquakes would be joyous events that everyone hopes and waits for, as they’d be a fantastic source of renewable energy. The bigger the population center, the more free renewable energy. Which means that the REAL suffering from earthquakes will be nonexistent (much like the predictions of your theory) – ZERO suffering and much much hope and joy, which would reach its climax as the next earthquakes generates more free energy for cities and entire states. ZERO dashed hopes, ZERO pain, and ZERO anguish. The exact opposite of what you have to demonstrate.

        But as expected, you conveniently ignored this argument, since you have no answer to it. Instead, you keep repeating the same mantra, as if you’re possessed (“More bodies, doing more things, over longer times.”). And then once more you return to the same old debunked arguments. Let’s see how you tackle this one first.

        “The example was simply highlighting the increasing potential of suffering caused by any old earthquake, or other natural disaster, striking ever-expanding human population centers. This is historically accurate, as you are fully aware,”

        I see that you conveniently added the words “or other natural disaster,” since you know perfectly well that your argument about earthquakes has been utterly demolished. You do NOT have historically accurate data which shows a linear relationship population size and suffering caused by earthquakes. That’s because technology has dramatically reduced the damages done by earthquakes to populations, especially in developed countries. And you have no data to show otherwise.

        “and reason why you simply refuse to answer the rhetorical question presented to you: which scenario best suits the Wicked Architects larger objectives; an earthquake striking 30 hunter gathers, 30,000 primitive urbanites, or 30,000,000 fixed, modern, dependent city dwellers?”

        I did answer the question, you just didn’t like my answer. The answer is that the trend you had to demonstrate (of suffering always increasing over time) cannot be substantiated by your example of earthquakes.

        “Here, as it’s clearly so difficult, I’ll answer the question for you: 30,000,000. Thirty-million individual lives filled with hopes and dreams, ambitions and loves; lives ripe for the delivery of complex and multifaceted forms of suffering, from grazed knees to the devastating anguish of a father losing his entire young family.”

        You’re so eager to answer your own questions, while conveniently ignoring my answers. But as I’ve already demonstrated, this little thought experiment of your does not demonstrate what you had to demonstrate – that suffering always increases over time.

        “So you see, our Omnimalevolent Creator wishes for humans (his favourite instruments of pleasure) to continually invent new measures which mean they live longer, superficially safer lives, because that, and that alone, ensures a ballooning and diversification of the overall marketplace of pain.”

        I see that you’ve conveniently removed the word “potential” from your argument. How predictable. How beyond desperate you are. As if by removing that word your argument magically became more sound. It didn’t. Since you cannot demonstrate that “More bodies, doing more things, over longer times” necessarily means that suffering must increase. It simply doesn’t.

        So let’s summarize for now your latest FAILED attempts to substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world.

        – Your “Human and Nature Dynamics model” utterly failed at demonstrating this.
        – Your “earthquake and population size” example utterly failed at demonstrating this.
        – Your “Astute investor” example utterly failed at demonstrating that.
        – Your “More bodies, doing more things, over longer times” utterly failed at demonstrating that
        None of these arguments demonstrate what you had to demonstrate – that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world.

        So what do you do when you exhaust all fresh arguments? You go back to the arguments that I’ve already thoroughly debunked months ago. Namely, your “older age = more suffering” argument. Sorry, but “your older age = more suffering” argument has already been debunked here: http://www.geopolitics.us/proving-god-exists/#comment-29915.

        But of course, you don’t care. You know that you’ve already lost a long time ago. At this point your only goal is simply to waste as much of my time as possible.

        Like

      • You see, there’s that reading and comprehension problem surfacing again. Try looking, you’ll see the word “potential;” meaning what is available. You also, once again, simply failed to grasp the nature of the malicious program. You’re so fixated (there’s that word again) on convincing yourself that I’ve presented argument X, when in fact I’ve presented argument Y, that you’re missing the entire conversation. This is a sign, psychiatrists would duly note, of your delusions taking over complete control of your thinking. In your very noisy mind, I’ve laid out some fixed, rigid program, and if you can just identify one area that you think contradicts this imagined proclamation then you’ve won something. And so again, I’m forced to repeat what’s already been written:

        “Isolated setbacks, bankruptcies, and short-term profit taking will see the market fluctuate, but if the general trend is up, then all is well in the world.”

        That’s the truth your delusional mind doesn’t want you to acknowledge, but I’m afraid to say, there it is, in black and white. Market fluctuations; exampled in the real world through major negative events like plagues, tsunamis, wars, economic and societal collapses, and minor, but equally devastating events like family tragedies, sickness, and even love lost. Now pay attention, the fluctuations also include positive leaps forward in the methods of living. It’s always been there… you just never wanted to recognise what was actually written. Similarly, it seems the voices in your head were really hollering when your eyes hit this line:

        So you see, our Omnimalevolent Creator wishes for humans (his favourite instruments of pleasure) to continually invent new measures which mean they live longer, superficially safer lives, because that, and that alone, ensures a ballooning and diversification of the overall marketplace of pain.

        Now, I have to say, I particularly loved this line: but earthquakes would be joyous events that everyone hopes and waits for. Rainbow surfing unicorn’s aside, did you perhaps miss the part where I wrote, “our Omnimalevolent Creator wishes for humans to continually invent new measures which mean they live longer, superficially safer lives”? Of course you missed it, those mischievous voices made sure you missed it, but I’ve repeated that twice here already, so maybe, just maybe, it’ll sink in this time…

        What has become painfully clear is that you don’t even know what you’re arguing for, or against. You’ve tied yourself up in so many knots that you’re boxing imaginary arguments and fighting fictional wars.

        Like

      • “You’re so fixated (there’s that word again) on convincing yourself that I’ve presented argument X, when in fact I’ve presented argument Y, that you’re missing the entire conversation.”

        It looks like there is one sentence that haunts you, and from which you’re trying to escape, and that sentence is what your sociopathic fantasy predicted: “Suffering is guaranteed, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time.”

        I know you’re kicking yourself in the butt for putting this indefensible claim for the world to see, but there it is, and you can no longer go back on it. In case your little mind does not comprehend what you actually wrote there (it is perfectly understandable, because chances are you just put a few words together on paper that you had no idea what they mean), let me define some key terms there:

        “Always” means “at all times; on all occasions; for all future time; forever”

        “Increase” means “become or make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree”

        So as I said, your arguments have to substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world.

        Now the problem was not that you did not yell your argument loudly enough, or put it in bold letters. The problem is that your argument does not substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world. That’s the sad reality you simply refuse to accept (but as I said, your theory died a long time ago, you’re just in denial of this fact).

        You say: “Isolated setbacks, bankruptcies, and short-term profit taking will see the market fluctuate, but if the general trend is up, then all is well in the world.”

        Now how does this substantiate your claim? Just because the “market” becomes larger (ie. there is more flourishing of life), you simply cannot demonstrate that the fluctuations will become greater (an argument that is indispensable for your theory). How can you guarantee it? You simply cannot. You can pretend like this is implicit in the “structure of the market” but you cannot demonstrate that. Yet, if the fluctuations don’t increase then your argument is meaningless. Since it doesn’t demonstrate that suffering is increasing. Then all your have is: “if the general trend is up, then all is well in the world” – which is the exact opposite of what you had to demonstrate.

        In fact, there is every reason to expect the fluctuations to decrease. (one example of such “fluctuation” is effect of earthquakes on urban areas. As I’ve demonstrated, not only this “fluctuation” will eventually have no negative impact on the “market” but it would work to REDUCE other fluctuations).

        “Market fluctuations; exampled in the real world through major events like plagues, tsunamis, wars, economic and societal collapses, and minor, but equally devastating events like family tragedies, sickness, and even love lost. It’s always been there… you just never wanted to recognise what was actually written.”

        As I’ve already demonstrated, you cannot show that such fluctuations will have an increased effect on suffering over time (which is what you must show). And, in fact, there is every reason to believe that, with ever greater knowledge of the laws that govern the world, the trend of suffering due to these “fluctuations” will decrease, to the point where the negative effects are entirely eliminated (as I’ve already demonstrated how this can be done in the case of earthquakes). Not only that, but humanity will harness the energy released from natural events like hurricanes and earthquakes to generate free renewable energy.

        But the main point is this: you simply cannot demonstrate that suffering must increase over time due to these “market fluctuations.” Your argument is entirely faith-based. You just HOPE that these will lead to greater suffering over time, but you cannot substantiate the claim that this must happen.

        So you see, our Omnimalevolent Creator wishes for humans (his favourite instruments of pleasure) to continually invent new measures which mean they live longer, superficially safer lives, because that, and that alone, ensures a ballooning and diversification of the overall marketplace of pain.

        As I’ve already said. You initially claimed that “potential” pain and suffering will increase. You see, THAT argument you could actually DEFEND (although, as I already pointed out, that was also a meaningless argument, since “potential” pain and suffering doesn’t mean anything).

        But now you quietly removed the word “potential” and you think that your argument is better. But it isn’t. Because now your argument is simply INDEFENSIBLE. You simply cannot substantiate the claim that over time (say, 700 years from now) people’s lives will only be “superficially” safer. Based on what do you say that? Because your delusions will magically make hurricanes that the technology 700 years from now will not be able to detect on time, or harness their energy? Or maybe your delusions will make magical plagues that miraculously violate the laws of evolutionary biology, and then humanity’s medicine will be ineffective against it? These are simply assertions you cannot defend. Once again, your argument is entirely faith-based.

        Like

      • Fixated on the miniscule, unable to comprehend the larger conversation at hand, invents straw men which he slays, and actually believes he’s accomplished something. It’s an amusing, but broken record.

        Now clearly the concepts of market fluctuations and general trends are radically too complex for you to grasp. But then again, you are battling an imagined argument; an argument you “believe” has been made, despite what has actually been presented in black and white. You are also warring with reality, as presented in the population bloom video; a simple to understand graphic (simple, for sane folk, that is) which demonstrates the general trend of human expansion; a burgeoning of the human marketplace which has, over time, grown more complex, more diverse, more dependent, and ever, ever, ever more veracious in its plundering of natural resources.

        Are you, perhaps, denying that the human population has both increased exponentially, and grown more complex over time? And please don’t make me repeat for the umpteenth time that suffering does not simply mean mindless violence and death. Your continued evasion of reality and denial of what has been written is rather boring.

        And here’s a tremendous example of a deluded mind in action: “if the fluctuations don’t increase then your argument is meaningless.” Care to point to where I said anything about fluctuations having to increase. I’m guessing you’ll decline this request. You want to know why? Because there is no place where I said such a thing. Once again, you have created an imagined argument in your head, a straw man, which you have attacked like any lunatic would attack a phantom demon: with mindless gusto.

        And so, not only do we have a non-existent argument, it’s also impossible to understand what you’re even rambling on about. Why would anyone think “fluctuations” would follow some predictable pattern? Surely the very nature of what constitutes a “fluctuation” would imply relative un-predictableness, wouldn’t you say? That said, we do have massive increases in the depth and scope of these fluctuations in events like the Black Plague, Spanish Flu, and more recently in the global financial market meltdown; large scale events made possible, in-part, because of human population concentrations and global travel. Conversely, we have observed massive, seemingly positive fluctuations in mortality rates of certain populations after the adoption of vaccination policies. In the future, superbugs might well cull tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, while some miraculous GM corn might seriously dent child mortality rates in Sub-Saharan Africa… and so what if these events do unravel? Wouldn’t such happenings, positive and negative, fall under the banner of a “fluctuation”?

        Now, I do find your ramblings here especially cute, though. All caps, exclamation marks… It’s like a circus of uncut fury. I guess that’s what happens when you’re brawling with an imagined, non-existent argument.

        And my goodness, you’re still going on about the word “potential,” I see. I’m afraid to say it, but you, sir, have a dangerously serious problem with reading and comprehension. Take a breath. Calm yourself. Banish those voices in your head for a minute, and actually read what was written. Trust me, you’ll find the word “potential” there. Again, it means what is available, which is to say, the latent size of the market. But again, you probably won’t grasp this as you’re off in your own merry world, fighting with things that don’t exist.

        Like

      • Here is just one way to illustrate why your argument that “More bodies, doing more things, over longer times” = “suffering must increase” is total bunk.

        Let’s look at annual motor vehicle deaths. Now, as you know, every year we have more and more cars on the road in the US, traveling more miles, and longer distances. According to your argument this MUST mean that there should be more suffering (let’s say, in the form of more deaths from road accidents). Sure, there could be less deaths relative to the size of the growing population. But the ABSOLUTE number of deaths and injuries absolutely must increase. Otherwise, your argument is total bunk.

        Now let’s look at some Real World Data, and see if your argument has ANY merit. Well, you can look for yourself, but I’m warning you, this might shatter your little sociopathic worldview:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
        So what does the real world data tell us? More people are driving in more cars, over longer distances every year (remember: “More bodies, doing more things, over longer times”?). Yet, the trend clears shows that, not only is the number of fatalities per millions of miles traveled is decreasing, and not only is the number of fatalities per capita decreasing, but the ABSOLUTE number of fatalities is decreasing as well. The total number peaked in the 70s (when the population was 2/3 of what it is now), and has been declining ever since – the exact opposite of what you claimed should happen.

        So once again, you present faith-based arguments that represent nothing in reality and that you cannot substantiate. And yet you still hope, for some inexplicable reason, that your fraud will go undetected. You are truly a man of great faith.

        Like

      • Road vehicles deaths. Are you serious, is that the pin-prick of an argument you’re going to present? LOL!

        In the US:
        1899 – 26 deaths.
        2013 – 35,500.

        Now, can you tell me which is the bigger number: twenty-six (26), or thirty-five thousand, five-hundred (35,500)? Let’s not stop there, though. Let’s look at injuries, shall we. 2,239,000! That’s two-million, two-hundred and thirty-nine thousand broken and maimed bodies, many quadriplegic, many more paraplegic, families who’ve lives have been turned upside down, and not to mention jobs lost and bankruptcy due to medical bills.

        But let’s look at some fluctuations. My, during the Second World War traffic fatalities decreased quite markedly. That’s interesting. There are some other brief downturns, short-lived decreases from one year to the next, but since 1899 the general trend is: up, up, and up! Do try and remember, its quality and quantity of suffering, not distribution per capita, that matters.

        Now, this is just the US. China last year had a whopping 276,000 traffic accident fatalities. India, 243,000. Brazil, 44,000. Russia 28,000. Vietnam, 22,000. Thailand, 26,000. Nigeria, 53,000. Indonesia, 42,000. Now, shall we look at the minor and severe injuries, the lives broken, the dreams dashed….

        Like

      • “Road vehicles deaths. Are you serious, is that the pin-prick of an argument you’re going to present? LOL!

        In the US:
        1899 – 26 deaths.
        2013 – 35,500.

        Now, can you tell me which is the bigger number: twenty-six (26), or thirty-five thousand, five-hundred (35,500)?”

        “…the general trend is: up, up, and up!”

        This is priceless. Obviously at this point you don’t even care that you lost the debate a long time ago. You’re simply trying to waste as much of my time as possible with blatantly disingenuous and deceitful claims. You even claim that the general trend is up. You repeat “up” three times and add an exclamation point – as if you’re trying to connivence yourself of your own fraud. How adorable.

        Now, remember, this is the argument you have to defend: “Suffering is guaranteed, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time.”

        The only thing that matters for your argument is the TREND for the FUTURE (the indefinite future, in fact. Not just the next 10 or 20 years). That is what you have to demonstrate – that “suffering is always increased over time.” Not that suffering has already increased and now it is steadily declining – that’s the exact opposite of what you had to demonstrate.

        So is suffering ALWAYS increasing over time? Please tell me, is the TREND up or down for the past 50 years? How about the past 40 years? 30 years? 20 years? I think you get the point. The trend is steadily declining, and has been steadily declining for decades – the exact opposite of what you had to demonstrate (“suffering is always increased over time”). There is not even the faintest sign that the trend will magically reverse, as it has been declining for the past 40 years.

        So the trend is steadily declining (both for deaths and for injuries), despite the fact that “More bodies, doing more things, over longer times.” Today the death rate is less than what it was in 1934 (even though the population is 2.5 times larger). So how does this substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world? When suffering is demonstrably DECLINING here? How does it substantiate your claims that “More bodies, doing more things, over longer times” = “increase in suffering”? The trend shows the exact opposite. Which means that your argument has been thoroughly debunked.

        And here is another gem of yours: “unable to comprehend the larger conversation at hand, invents straw men which he slays, and actually believes he’s accomplished something. It’s an amusing, but broken record.” – how perfectly does this describe what you’re doing. Defending the argument you DIDN’T make, while your theory is thoroughly debunked.

        Like

      • Why didn’t you answer my question? Here it is again, just in case you missed it:

        Can you tell me which is the bigger number: twenty-six (26), or thirty-five thousand, five-hundred (35,500)?

        Like

      • “You are also warring with reality, as presented in the population bloom video; a simple to understand graphic (simple, for sane folk, that is) which demonstrates the general trend of human expansion; a burgeoning of the human marketplace which has, over time, grown more complex, more diverse, more dependent, and ever, ever, ever more veracious in its plundering of natural resources.”

        You still don’t get it, do you? Your argument right now is basically this:

        Over the past 13 BILLION YEARS the GENERAL TREND has been that [insert a technology that will be introduced in the next 5 years] did not exist. Therefore, the GENERAL TREND shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE for [insert a technology that will be introduced in the next 5 years] to EVER exist.

        Now, any mature person with an education above the kindergarten-level can see the obvious flaw in your argument, but for some reason you cannot. The simple challenge to your argument is this: what is there to GUARANTEE that the GENERAL TREND you speak of will not change? Even though cellphones did not exist for 13 billion years, they exist now. And so the GENERAL TREND that held for 13 billion years (of cellphones not existing) has been broken.

        Yet, that is exactly what you have to demonstrate. That your “general trend” cannot EVER be broken.

        So for the millionth time. This is what you have to demonstrate: “Suffering is guaranteed, and the Omnimalevolent designer has made it such that suffering is always increased over time.” In other words, you have to substantiate your claim that increase in suffering is the ultimate, permanent, unalterable, state of the world.

        General trends are meaningless unless you can demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE to break them. And can you demonstrate that? Of course not. Therefore, you lose the debate.

        “Are you, perhaps, denying that the human population has both increased exponentially, and grown more complex over time?”

        Again, what is to GUARANTEE that this trend will continue forever? That it will be the same 100 years from now, 5,000 years from now, 50,000 years from now, and 500,000,000 years from now? Please do tell me. How can you guarantee that this will be the case? Otherwise, your general trend is meaningless. I’ve already shown that trends that held 13 BILLION YEARS (much longer than any trend you’ve shown) have been reversed.

        “Care to point to where I said anything about fluctuations having to increase. “

        “Fluctuations” – triggers for suffering. If fluctuations don’t have larger impact, then there won’t be increase in suffering. Which means that you failed to prove what you had to prove.

        “Why would anyone think “fluctuations” would follow some predictable pattern? Surely the very nature of what constitutes a “fluctuation” would imply relative un-predictableness, wouldn’t you say?”

        No. I wouldn’t say. Because you’re assuming it is impossible to have better understanding of the laws that govern the world. With better understanding there are less things that are not predicted. Therefore, LESS “fluctuations.”

        “That said, we do have massive increases in the depth and scope of these fluctuations in events like the Black Plague, Spanish Flu, and more recently in the global financial market meltdown; large scale events made possible, in-part, because of human population concentrations and global travel. Conversely, we have observed massive, seemingly positive fluctuations in mortality rates of certain populations after the adoption of vaccination policies. In the future, superbugs might well cull tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, while some miraculous GM corn might seriously dent child mortality rates in Sub-Saharan Africa… and so what if these events do unravel? Wouldn’t such happenings, positive and negative, fall under the banner of a “fluctuation”?”

        And how can you GUARANTEE that a) events that negative fluctuations will continue to happen indefinitely (without humanity countering them with greater knowledge), and b) that such events will cause greater suffering all the time? There is nothing to GUARANTEE that this will happen. You just HOPE that this will be the case (therefore your argument is entirely faith-based). But you cannot guarantee that this trend will continue 100,000 years from now. Yet, that is EXACTLY what you have to demonstrate to substantiate your theory – that you can GUARANTEE this will be the case – FOREVER (and despite the fact that knowledge and technology constantly improves, thus making things more and more predictable and any destruction more preventable).

        “Trust me, you’ll find the word “potential” there. Again, it means what is available, which is to say, the latent size of the market. “

        Unless REAL suffering increases your argument is bunk.

        Like

      • Your ramblings are getting more and more incoherent, and that’s saying something, considering they started out from a rickety platform of traumatised nonsense.

        I suppose it’s not at all surprising then that the broken record continues to screech with absurdities plucked from the non-space of the madness you call “home.” “General trends are meaningless unless you can demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE to break them.”

        Riddle me this: how do people today make plans for tomorrow, or the day after, if not by consulting, and relying on, general trends; stable, reliable, “meaningful” patterns (from environmental conditions to bus timetables) which enable them to predict the near future?

        You see, there are two people chatting here, but only one has his feet, and mind, firmly in reality. You, my fabulously delusional friend, rage against established and presently unfolding patterns, rebel against fixed facts, and scream at complete textbook histories of humanity, and then invest your entire furious [all caps, exclamation mark/s] argument on one simple, fragile plea: But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!

        That’s it. That’s the entire depth of your high-pitched shrill.

        Alas, yet again, I have to copy and paste what has already been written:

        “When you scream hopefully to the air “But we can change!” our Omnimalevolent Creator calmly replies, “Good.” Change and sporadic bursts of development keeps the killing fields fresh and forever plump.”

        You see, you should really pay attention to what’s been written. Perhaps you also missed this other part, so maybe I should repeat it just to save you performing another irrational, absurd, derailed rant:

        Is anyone claiming such preventative efforts are denied? As the Omnimalevolent Creator wishes there to be more bodies, doing more things, over longer times these efforts are not only welcomed, but encouraged. Preventing wide-scale destruction and massive population extinctions is desirable. How else, my naïve friend, would the Owner of All Infernal Names maximize his enjoyment? How else, my naïve friend, would the Owner of All Infernal Names celebrate the population bloom graphically demonstrated in the video? If our evil creator wished to maximize death alone he would never have allowed medicine to develop and flourish, choosing instead to let virulent diseases ravish forever tiny populations. If our evil creator wished to maximize death alone he would never have permitted agricultural technology and animal husbandry. If our evil creator wished to maximize death alone he would never have approved of the humble keel which vastly increased both the life expectancy of sailors and the scope of navigational possibilities… two things which enabled human settlements to spring up in once inaccessible geographic locations.

        Reading and comprehension. It pays to pay attention.

        Like

      • “Why didn’t you answer my question? Here it is again, just in case you missed it:

        Can you tell me which is the bigger number: twenty-six (26), or thirty-five thousand, five-hundred (35,500)?”

        Because you’re trying to waste my time. Your question is completely irrelevant to what you have to demonstrate. If you had to demonstrate that suffering has increased and now it is steadily declining then you’ve proved it. But that’s not what you had to prove, is it? So unless you explain how answering this question is relevant to what you have demonstrate I’m not going to keep entertaining your disingenuous diversions.

        Also, didn’t see you answer a question is actually is relevant to what you had to demonstrate, which is this:

        “So is suffering ALWAYS increasing over time? Please tell me, is the TREND up or down for the past 50 years? How about the past 40 years? 30 years? 20 years?”

        Remember:

        The only thing that matters for your argument is the TREND for the FUTURE (the indefinite future, in fact. Not just the next 10 or 20 years). That is what you have to demonstrate – that “suffering is always increased over time.” Not that suffering has already increased and now it is steadily declining – that’s the exact opposite of what you had to demonstrate.

        Like

      • “Riddle me this: how do people today make plans for tomorrow, or the day after, if not by consulting, and relying on, general trends; stable, reliable, “meaningful” patterns (from environmental conditions to bus timetables) which enable them to predict the near future?”

        This is getting very tiresome. You think you can win a debate through sophistry, but you cannot. So for the nth time, you have to demonstrate that suffering ALWAYS increases over time. Do you understand the meaning of the word “always”? Your “general pattern” should apply not from today to tomorrow, but from now and to ETERNITY! That’s the moronic claim you’ve made, and that’s the claim you have to defend. You keep trying to divert attention from the argument you have to defend by defending an argument you didn’t make. How precious.

        If all that your theory predicted was that in the very near future (let’s say, 10-25 years) suffering will increase, then we’d be having a very different conversation. But that is not what your theory predicted, is it?

        So how about you actually demonstrate what you have to demonstrate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And boy did you make an extraordinary claim!

        You have to demonstrate that suffering ALWAYS increases over time. So if your defense is that there is a “general trend” of increase in suffering, please tell us why this trend will continue 1000 years from now and 5000 years from now. If you cannot demonstrate this then you cannot substantiate the claim that suffering ALWAYS increases over time with the “general trend” argument.

        As I said, your “general trend” argument in a nutshell is this:

        Over the past 13 BILLION YEARS the GENERAL TREND has been that [insert a technology that will be introduced in the next 5 years] did not exist. Therefore, the GENERAL TREND shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE for [insert a technology that will be introduced in the next 5 years] to EVER exist.

        Or, in your words: there is a “general trend” which shows that suffering has increased, therefore suffering ALWAYS increases over time.

        So unless you can demonstrate why it is impossible to permanently break (or reverse) your supposed “general trend,” that argument is irrelevant to what you have to demonstrate. Kapish?

        Like

      • “Your “general pattern” should apply not from today to tomorrow, but from now and to ETERNITY!”

        Eternity, huh? LOL! Are you trying to out-weird yourself? And while you’re considering that question, are we assuming a cyclic universe here, or one that will simply freeze over after the last atom of hydrogen is spent? Also, are you not aware that “tomorrow” is a generic term meaning, “the near future”? Honestly, do I have to explain each and every individual word to you? How old are you, anyway? By the way you plagiarise my word-plays I’m starting to suspect somewhere between 14 and 16, and definitely American.

        Now, any particular reason you’d like to give for simply ignoring that which has been repeated ad nauseam? Are those increasingly anxious voices telling you (yet again) to avoid, at all costs, actually addressing what is being presented in black and white? Is that mischievous Field Marshal ordering you to persist with a hilariously absurd assault on non-existent claims, made in a make-believe argument which exists only in the imaginary war room busily operating inside your mind? It would appear so.

        But do enlighten me. Let’s both simply ignore the fact that I’ve established (repeatedly) that change is good and thoroughly welcomed by our Omnimalevolent Creator, and ask you whether you have, perhaps, forgotten that you’re supposed to be defending the existence of your supposedly omnibenevolent Middle Eastern god, Yhwh… or have the facts on the ground made that an untenable, utterly hopeless situation for you?

        Alas, given the general trend already well-established here, I know you’ll simply ignore this question and flutter back to battling those claims which you “think” have been made, and repeat the only argument you have, to-date, been capable of presenting: “But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!”

        Like

      • “You, my fabulously delusional friend, rage against established and presently unfolding patterns, rebel against fixed facts, and scream at complete textbook histories of humanity, and then invest your entire furious [all caps, exclamation mark/s] argument on one simple, fragile plea: But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!

        That’s it. That’s the entire depth of your high-pitched shrill.”

        Not at all. I’m perfectly fine with the facts. It is you who should be worried, since the facts don’t align with your predictions. After all, you must demonstrate that your “general trend” can never be reversed, since according to you suffering must ALWAYS increase over time.

        Yet, I’ve already demonstrated that “general trends” of far grander scope and magnitude – trends of evolutionary, geological, and cosmological scope – have been shattered forever, in a heartbeat. Trends that held for billions of years! What is your little 2000 year “general trend” of “population bloom” compared to a 13 billion year trend of nonexistence of cellphones? And yet, despite a litany of hard evidence, carefully collected over billions of years of cellphones not existing, the prediction that cellphones must ALWAYS not exist over time was shattered – forever. Because of a sudden “fluctuation” of cellphones beginning to exist.

        And so, this puts you in a very precarious situation. It turns out that there are countless such predictions that were proven wrong. And so, the question is, what makes your prediction any different? What is there to guarantee that suffering must ALWAYS increase over time? Despite the overwhelming majority of other similarly ridiculous predictions that failed?

        Like

      • Why did you avoid answering my question again? I would have thought it quite an easy question to answer. Are you perhaps having trouble deciphering the letters and words?

        Here, one more time:

        Can you tell me which is the bigger number: twenty-six (26), or thirty-five thousand, five-hundred (35,500)?

        Like

      • “Why did you avoid answering my question again? I would have thought it quite an easy question to answer. Are you perhaps having trouble deciphering the letters and words?”

        Once again you demonstrate that you would do absolutely everything in your power to postpone the inevitable and avoid the unavoidable. Your strategy? Avoid at all costs defending your argument by diverting the discussion to topics that are completely irrelevant to it. Thus wasting as much of my time as you possibly can.

        As I said, I will answer your question as soon as you explain how it is relevant, directly or indirectly, to your arguments. Remember, you have to demonstrate two things here:
        a) that “More bodies doing more things over a longer time” = “suffering must increase” and b) suffering ALWAYS increases over time.

        Unless you explain how your question is relevant to either one of these I’m not going to waste my time by playing your silly games.

        While you’re at it, you can also answer my question (which is actually relevant to your arguments):

        “So is suffering ALWAYS increasing over time? Please tell me, is the TREND up or down for the past 50 years? How about the past 40 years? 30 years? 20 years?”

        Like

      • It really was a simple question, and if your memory needs refreshing, it arose directly from the astonishingly juvenile example you threw up. Please don’t tell me you’re going to run away from this now, just like you ran away from the Human Dynamics Model, which you also brought up, but then didn’t want to own…

        Like

      • “It really was a simple question, and if your memory needs refreshing, it arose directly from the astonishingly juvenile example you threw up. Please don’t tell me you’re going to run away from this now, just like you ran away from the Human Dynamics Model, which you also brought up, but then didn’t want to own…”

        I remember the context quite well. The road vehicles deaths statistics thoroughly debunked your claim that “More bodies, doing more things, over longer times” = “suffering must increase.”

        It demonstrated that, even though the population is increasing, and the number of cars on the road is increasing, and the distances travelled increases (“More bodies, doing more things, over longer times”), the ABSOLUTE number of deaths is steadily declining, and has been steadily declining for the past 40 years. The exact opposite of what you had to demonstrate.

        So please do tell me, how is your specific question relevant to any of this? You didn’t quite answer that question.

        Like

      • There’s those reading and comprehension problems again. Your eyes clearly missed this line:

        “Do try and remember, its quality and quantity of suffering, not distribution per capita, that matters.”

        So, want to dance a few more times, or are you going to answer the question?

        Like

      • Nor did you answer this question:

        “So is suffering ALWAYS increasing over time? Please tell me, is the TREND up or down for the past 50 years? How about the past 40 years? 30 years? 20 years?”

        Like

      • Great! Deaths are down. Airbag technology has saved lives. This would be interesting if 1. death alone was important, 2. road fatalities represented the world at large, and 3. if we were only looking at one minor market: the US. You see, you’re not grasping what suffering is. Here’s a number for you: two-million, two-hundred and thirty-nine thousand. That’s two-million, two-hundred and thirty-nine thousand people injured and lives ruined in traffic accidents just last year, and just in the US alone. It’s a fun number, isn’t it: two-million, two-hundred and thirty-nine thousand. We can thank better built cars, airbags, and especially surgeons for keeping more bodies alive that would have, in the past, surely died. So, instead of one dead motorist in 1990, we have a living quadriplegic in 2014, forced to spend the rest of his life (decades) in a chair, unable to find work, and dependent on others for his very survival.

        Viola!

        Like

      • “Your “general pattern” should apply not from today to tomorrow, but from now and to ETERNITY!”

        “Eternity, huh? LOL! Are you trying to out-weird yourself? And while you’re considering that question, are we assuming a cyclic universe here, or one that will simply freeze over after the last atom of hydrogen is spent?”

        We’re not “assuming” anything. You have to substantiate whatever claims you make. That’s usually how debates work. If you have some magical knowledge about what kind of lifeforms will be in existence trillions of years from now, and what technology they’ll have then to interact with the universe (or multiverse) please do share this knowledge. After all, you claim to know that suffering will be increasing over time even trillions of years from now, so surely you must have knowledge the rest of humanity does not.

        “Also, are you not aware that “tomorrow” is a generic term meaning, “the near future”? Honestly, do I have to explain each and every individual word to you? How old are you, anyway? I’m starting to suspect somewhere between 14 and 16, and definitely American.”

        The real question is, do you understand what the word ALWAYS means? Because that word is quite central to your argument.

        “Now, any particular reason you’d like to give for simply ignoring that which has been repeated ad nauseam? Are those increasingly anxious voices telling you (yet again) to avoid, at all costs, actually addressing what is being presented in black and white? Is that mischievous Field Marshal ordering you to persist with a hilariously absurd assault on non-existent claims, made in a make-believe argument which exists only in the imaginary war room busily operating inside your mind? It would appear so.”

        You mean, like you’re avoiding at all costs talking about your theory, even though this is the topic of debate? Unlike you, I have nothing to evade. And unlike your argument, mine is actually logically sound.

        But do enlighten me. Let’s both simply ignore the fact that I’ve established (repeatedly) that change is good and thoroughly welcomed by our Omnimalevolent Creator

        So a change which results in a permanent and irreversible shattering of any “general trend” of increased suffering is welcomed? Good to know. It’s not only welcomed, it also completely nullifies your theory.

        “and ask you whether you have, perhaps, forgotten that you’re supposed to be defending the existence of your supposedly omnibenevolent Middle Eastern god, Yhwh… or have the facts on the ground made that an untenable, utterly hopeless situation for you?”

        Hahahhahaha – “utterly hopeless situation for you”

        Now, what did I say about your debating method? Let’s recap:

        you would do “absolutely everything in your power to postpone the inevitable and avoid the unavoidable. Your strategy? Avoid at all costs defending your argument by diverting the discussion to topics that are completely irrelevant to it.”

        You get more and more desperate with every passing moment. You’re so hopeless that you don’t even bother making up new irrelevant claims and arguments to divert attention from your inability to defend the logical fallacy also known as your theory.

        I “forgot” that I have to defend my argument?! LOL! I have no problem whatsoever defending my argument. But please do tell me, where did you present any challenges to my argument lately? I don’t see them anywhere in this thread.

        “Alas, given the general trend already well-established here, I know you’ll simply ignore this question and flutter back to battling those claims which you “think” have been made, and repeat the only argument you have, to-date, been capable of presenting: “But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!””

        Actually, the argument is not at all: “But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!” – as much as you’d like everyone to believe. The argument is that your entire theory (and in particular the “general trend” argument) is a LOGICAL FALLACY known as Hasty Generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization “essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables”).
        It goes something like this:

        X is true for A.
        X is true for B.
        X is true for C.
        X is true for D.
        Therefore, X is true for E, F, G, etc.

        In your case it’s X (increase in suffering) is ALWAYS true.

        I demonstrated why your theory is based on a logical fallacy in the example of “cellphones not existing 13 billion years proves that cellphones will ALWAYS not exist.”
        Clearly you couldn’t counter that argument, so instead you resorted to your usual tactic of endless hand-waving and empty rhetoric. You even went so far as to try to avoid any discussion of your theory all together by claiming that I didn’t defend my theory (even though you did not present any challenge that needed defending).

        Now, unless you can counter the fact that your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy, you lose the debate.

        Like

      • You do realise you’re making a fool out of yourself, don’t you? The injuries you’re suffering are, though, entirely self-inflicted, and you can stop this self-harming at any moment you chose. All you have to do is actually read that which has already been written. In particular, I would point you to the repeated explanations of general trends and market fluctuations; terms which should be easy to understand, but for you, evidently not. Pay attention to what is written and, as you will see, these two dynamic terms represent movements, patterns if you like; the former vastly more predictable than the latter, which is be expected, given the underlining meanings of both terms. The beauty of large, hard datasets is that they can be plotted over time, enabling the impartial observer to establish patterns and conclude if a single system (within larger systems) is static, decreasing, or increasing over time, and in a relatively predictable manner, depending on the measures employed. The word, or perhaps feeling, you’re looking for here is, fluid. Nowhere in this idea of fluidness is to be found the claim of “always.” Things aren’t as fixed as you would like them to be, and so becoming fixated on the miniscule is making you look like a true idiot. Now, this is not however to say that the impartial observer is incapable of making a fairly definitive value-call should the historical data and present-day trends afford it. For example: the sun will come up tomorrow. It might not, but the chances are it will, and no one is going to throttle the man for saying it will. Why? Because the data he’s using to make this call is somewhat reliable. We know the sun will not always come up, but as for it rising tomorrow in the morning sky, it’s a safe bet. Similarly, the more complex and diverse human life has become the more complex and diverse has become the ways an individual human can suffer. A nomadic man whose only possessions included a spear and water bladder could not possibly know the misery of losing a home to fire or foreclosure. The concepts are simply beyond him, and as such, he is completely immune to such distress. Such complex anguish is not within the field of possible experiences for this man, but it is all-too real to the more culturally complex homeowner generations later. Consider also that some cycles are long, while others are short. All cycles, though, are connected, and these turn independently, at differing speeds, and, sometimes, in differing directions. The global human population bloom has resulted in greater and greater habitat loss; yet there are a few examples where stolen habitats were reclaimed by nature, such as what transpired after the decline of the Inca. No sane person would, however, point to the fall of the Inca Empire and the forests reclamation of their once great cities as evidence for the global human population consuming less and less land every year…. Would they?

        I do hope that’s now clear to you, but I’m not holding my breath.

        Like

      • “Great! Deaths are down. Airbag technology has saved lives. This would be interesting if 1. death alone was important, 2. road fatalities represented the world at large, and 3. if we were only looking at one minor market: the US. You see, you’re not grasping what suffering is. Here’s a number for you: two-million, two-hundred and thirty-nine thousand. That’s two-million, two-hundred and thirty-nine thousand people injured and lives ruined in traffic accidents just last year, and just in the US alone. It’s a fun number, isn’t it: two-million, two-hundred and thirty-nine thousand. We can thank better built cars, airbags, and especially surgeons for keeping more bodies alive that would have, in the past, surely died. So, instead of one dead motorist in 1990, we have a living quadriplegic in 2014, forced to spend the rest of his life (decades) in a chair, unable to find work, and dependent on others for his very survival.”

        “Do try and remember, its quality and quantity of suffering, not distribution per capita, that matters.”

        And… is the trend of injuries up or down for the past 40 years? Remember, the trend is what matters to your theory (“suffering ALWAYS increases,” remember?), not a snapshot of how many people are killed/injured at any specific time. Hint: the trend for injuries is down! The exact opposite of what your argument (“More bodies doing more things over a longer time” = “suffering must increase”) stated. Thus your argument has been thoroughly debunked.

        Like

      • Now let’s use your tactic. Please tell me, which number is greater: 3,332,000 (injured in road vehicles in the US in 1996), or 2,239,000 (injured in road vehicles in the US in 2013)

        Once you answer that question, please tell me, which number is greater:
        265,228,572 (US population in 1996) or 316,668,567 (US population in 2013).

        Then explain to me again how that fits into your argument that “More bodies doing more things over a longer time” = “suffering must increase.”

        Like

      • Great! Injuries in the US have decreased in the last decade from over three million to over two million. Wonderful news! It was an ugly trend that continues to produce ghastly levels of suffering…. millions of times more today than in 1900, yes? 100,000,000 (one-hundred million) in just the last 50 years. Only a fool would, however, claim the numbers are marching backwards, rather they have plateaued, which in marketing terms means it’s a mature Cash Cow; an ideal position for steady income generation. Surely you don’t however think the US actually represents the world, do you? Are you that narrow-minded? Perhaps you are, and therefore aren’t aware that deaths and injuries are still very much on the way up in the rest of world. Indeed, the World Health Organisation estimates global traffic deaths will increase from 1.24 million to 1.9 million by 2020. Now, if we take two-million injuries correlating to 35,000 deaths (in the US), then by a very rough (extremely conservative) approximation we should be expecting a blooming of injuries from about 70 million to 115 million per year. That’s one-hundred and fifteen million shattered lives, up by about forty-five million from today, per year.

        Tell me, have you ever even travelled outside the US?

        Now, shall we talk about a greater subject of injuries and death: wildlife road kills? It’s estimated that one million (1,000,000) animals are killed on US roads alone every day (Wollan, Malia, “Mapping Traffic’s Toll on Wildlife,” 2012). That’s every single day; roughly 350,000,000 lives extinguished every year, not to mention the billions left injured and irreversibly maimed.

        Or what, you don’t consider the suffering of other sentient life forms as being important?

        Let’s also then consider the astonishing loss of habitat caused by new roads and highways, and the towns that have sprung up along them. How about we also then consider the billions of tons of pollution from combustion engines, the devastation of marine and coastal habitats caused by massive oil spills, the killing of entire river systems through petrochemical dumping, and the life-smothering algal blooms produced by petroleum-based fertiliser runoff.

        You see: the larger narrative…. The thing you have repeatedly proven incapable of understanding.

        Now, despite traffic deaths going up globally, if in 100 years deaths do in fact decrease in a meaningful way across the planet then it means as much to the larger narrative as polio vaccinations eradicating that particular source of suffering. Cycles come and go. Blooms race out of control, then contract. Crisis precedes solution. Disease predates cure. You are fixated on one single node in a vast complex of nodes, and have convinced yourself, as insane people so often do, that that single node somehow represents the world. Heads up: it doesn’t. You have simply failed, failed miserably I might add, to comprehend the diversity of interrelated cycles of new and fresh forms of suffering connected, in this instance, to the rapid expansion of the automobile. But even if road deaths and injuries fell to zero, highways become environmentally friendly, and the petrochemical industry turned fantastically green it wouldn’t dent the overall canvass of suffering. Tuberculosis used to kill tens of millions just 60 years ago, but preventative efforts have brought that number down to 8.7 million in 2011. In this same time, though, obesity levels have rocketed, bringing about new ways of suffering that were simply unpredictable at the height of global TB blooms. Indeed, obesity-related deaths today out-shadow (by almost 4 to 1) road fatalities at their peak levels, and obesity-related diabetes has become the 7th leading cause of death in the United States… and that number is ballooning every year. New forms of suffering are forever been released, like new product lines, and we simply cannot predict the many marvellous and convoluted ways death and pain and anxiety and uncertainty will be delivered in future markets. Solutions are temporary reprieves; fluctuations. Something new is always waiting in the wings… Human history teaches us that.

        And this is why I have grown increasing bored with this conversation. You are simply incapable of 1. Comprehending the larger conversation, and 2. Advancing any argument which contradicts this larger conversation. If you were to make a serious dent in my cataloguing of the Omnimalevolent Creators wicked works you would have to demonstrate a clear and unequivocal movement toward less suffering on a grand, massive scale. I exampled this in the past by saying we should see complex organic life developing chlorophyll skin and becoming solar powered, rather than becoming more and more efficient at killing in order to steal another beasts protein, just so we can stay alive. You would have to demonstrate that we are reversing the global human population bloom and then prove we can fix it permanently at about 4 billion. You would have to demonstrate Man Made Global Warming won’t devastate great portions of our current civilisation, and biosphere. You would have to demonstrate that corporations consider human and animal life more valuable than profit. You would have to demonstrate that global financial markets are moving toward fixed and rigid stability, free of all debt, speculative trading, and bubble economics. You would have to demonstrate that manufacturing sectors will pay a living wage to all labour, and use only renewable resources. You would have to demonstrate that global economies can employ every able bodied person. You would have to demonstrate that politicians won’t lie. You would have to demonstrate the wealth gap moving in any direction other than further and faster apart. You would have to demonstrate definitive movements to sound resource management, and the curtailment of unchecked consumerism and wasteful consumption. You would have to demonstrate that land, water and air resources are being not just protected, but reclaimed, and will never again be polluted. You would have to demonstrate that war can be eradicated forever, greed abolished completely, and a common sense of shared purpose established within all human populations. You would have to demonstrate that all weapons could be removed from the world, and never return. You would have to demonstrate that virus’s will no-longer mutate.

        But what have you actually offered? Let me paraphrase: In the future humans will adore earthquakes. Stunning. Tell me, in your wonderfully obscure, tremendously vague, non-time-specific dream future will these forever healthy, loving, fully-fed, fully-employed, peaceful, animal-loving, unwaveringly truthful vegetarians also love volcanoes, cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, bushfires, asteroid strikes, gamma ray bursts, solar flares, blizzards, landslides, avalanches and tsunami’s, too?

        And so with that in mind, let me conclude with a few quotes from the sitting Republican members on the Congressional “Science” Committee; the people in charge of your country, and who you think are going to usher in this bright dreamy future of yours:

        “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell… And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
        -Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), 5th Oct, 2012

        “I believe it [the earth] was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
        -Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), 5th Oct, 2012

        Paul Broun (R-GA): “Scientists all over the world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated by the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.”

        Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI): “I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climate cycles than anything that human beings do.”

        Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA): “Is there some thought being given to the clearing of rainforests so some countries can eliminate that source of greenhouse gases?”

        Sandy Adams (R-FL): “I am encouraging us to reduce funding for climate change research, which undercuts one of NASA’s primary and most important objectives of human spaceflight.”

        Mo Brooks (R-AL): “We have higher levels of carbon dioxide. That means that plant life grows better. Does that mean I want more of it? I don’t know about the adverse effects of carbon dioxide on human beings.”

        Like

      • Please show me where – in the endless stream of nonsense, which is not even remotely relevant to what you had to demonstrate – you countered the following argument:

        Your entire theory (and in particular the “general trend” argument) is a LOGICAL FALLACY known as Hasty Generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization “essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables”).

        It goes something like this:

        X is true for A.
        X is true for B.
        X is true for C.
        X is true for D.
        Therefore, X is true for E, F, G, etc.

        In your case it’s X (increase in suffering) is ALWAYS true.

        I demonstrated why your theory is based on a logical fallacy in the example of “cellphones not existing 13 billion years proves that cellphones will ALWAYS not exist.”

        Clearly you couldn’t counter that argument, so instead you resorted to your usual tactic of endless hand-waving and empty rhetoric. You even went so far as to try to avoid any discussion of your theory all together by claiming that I didn’t defend my theory (even though you did not present any challenge that needed defending).

        Now, unless you can counter the fact that your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy, you lose the debate.

        Let me remind you for the trillionth time that your theory is based on this prediction:

        “SUFFERING IS GUARANTEED, AND THE OMNIMALEVOLENT DESIGNER HAS MADE IT SUCH THAT SUFFERING IS ALWAYS INCREASED OVER TIME

        In other words, you have to substantiate the claim that suffering will be continually increasing 10 years from now, 1,000 years from now, 1,000,000 years from now, and so on. That increase in suffering is a permanent, unalterable trend.

        So how did you demonstrate that your prediction (that suffering will be continually increasing 10 years from now, 1,000 years from now, and 1,000,000 years from now) take into account variables such as the state of knowledge at that time? How about the state of technology? The kinds of life forms that will exist at that point? Their social and economic organization, and so forth?

        Did you consider, for example, the fact that it will be possible to simulate, with high fidelity, vast and complex interactions in practically any field (epidemiology, engineering, ecology, geology, economics, international relations, you name it), and prevent potential causes of suffering long before they even arise? We’re moving in that direction every minute of every hour of every day. We constantly get better – not worse – at understanding our world. That is one “general trend” you’ve completely neglected – and it is a trend that is growing exponentially. This is also the “general trend” that subsumes any other “general trend” you presented. And completely refutes your “market fluctuations” argument, since things that once were incomprehensible and unpredictable become ever more understood, and ever more predictable and, if necessary, preventable.

        You see, you’re simply assuming that “Crisis precedes solution.” But if the crisis is virtually simulated, then only [virtual] crisis precedes [real] solution. And the actual suffering from a real crisis never comes. Thus suffering will exist only as a potentiality – never to be realized. How then will knowledge and technology affect your supposed “market fluctuations,” say, 10,000 years from now, or 100,000 years from now? All your supposed “market fluctuations” will fade into irrelevancy (much like the rest of the nonsense you’re spewing).

        Yes, all life evolves by a process of trial and error. That’s why, when you look at humanity through your myopic and sadistic glasses, all you see is more extravagant trials and more spectacular errors – errors which result in suffering. That’s why you think that the “general trend” is that there will always be increase in suffering over time. But what you completely fail to account for is the underlying mechanism – which is evolution itself. You also fail to see that the trials get more sophisticated, as living organisms learn from their errors. You’re simply assuming that there is no learning process here. But of course there is, without this learning there can be no evolution.
        Most other living organisms “learn” through Natural Selection. Nature selects those organisms whose genetic makeup “learned” to better adapt to its environment.
        We also learn from our errors, and over time our trials become more careful, more methodical, more exact. This process accelerated exponentially as we distilled the process of “trial and error” into the “Scientific Method” – an important stage in our evolution. Since then we’ve progressed beyond recognition in all spheres of knowledge, in technology, and in our ability to make predictions about the world we live in. Of course, there is still much drag on the system – ignorance, illiteracy, superstition, narrow-mindedness, and so on. Combine this with our technological advances and you see still more varied cases of errors. Cases which are continually being fixed and mended with even more trials and errors, which produce more learning. However, over time the drag on the system decreases, which results in more careful trials, and fewer errors.

        Now, through this learning process our knowledge and technology will advance ever further, until we’ll move to the next stage of evolution, where we have enough understanding of the laws that govern life and the world that we’ll be able to simulate more and more of our trials, thus eliminating the potential negative effects of errors. This is a self-feeding process, as every simulation produces broader and deeper understanding of our world, and ever more precise methods to predict and prevent any potential destruction. Thus the “general trend” – that subsumes all other trends – is that of better trials (ie. greater happiness) and fewer errors (ie. less suffering, or “market fluctuations”).

        Now, does this “general trend” guarantee that at some point all life will live in perfect harmony? Of course not. Nothing is guaranteed. We can have a nuclear war tomorrow which obliterates most life on the planet. But that too is part of the process of trial and error. The process by which living organisms “learn” to adapt to the laws that govern life and the world. Laws, that are necessarily harmonious.

        Like

      • Congratulations! You failed to address a single thing I wrote.

        “cellphones not existing 13 billion years proves that cellphones will ALWAYS not exist.”

        I ignored this piece of comedic drivel because it was simply too insane to take seriously. But let’s see, since you insist, by your reasoning: earthquake-proofing construction technology (dampeners, for example) not existing [for] 13 billion years proves earthquake-proofing construction technology will always not exist.

        How’s that? Work for you?

        From Wiki: “Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence”

        Alert every psychiatrist’s office in Vienna, we have a textbook case of projection! Would you like me to recap my summary of your failures in the traffic fatalities “case” which you so hastily raced into, and now most certainly regret? Your hasty, naïve assumption that the US represented the world. Your hasty, naïve assumption that traffic fatalities alone constituted the market of suffering. Your hasty, naïve assumption that markets can’t mature and settle into a state of stable income generation (Cash Cows) where hundreds-of-millions of bodies are processed through varying degrees of suffering and distress unheard of just 100 years before. Your hasty, naïve omission that billions upon billions of sentient creatures are also inside this complex matrix, as well as entire ecosystems thrown at the mercy of Big Oil and corrupted politicians.

        “In other words, you have to substantiate the claim that suffering will be continually increasing 10 years from now, 1,000 years from now, 1,000,000 years from now, and so on.”

        No, I don’t. I merely have to demonstrate, as I have done repeatedly, the presence and stability of trends exampled throughout history. You do remember the Human Dynamics model, don’t you… you know, that study you rather hastily, but mistakenly brought up? I chronicle the facts, and they speak for themselves. The onus is on you, my friend, to demonstrate that there is some truly massive, and I mean categorically monumental and permanent shift presently occurring in those (historic) trends for your argument to have any value whatsoever. I listed just some of the things you’d have to demonstrate above. Did you even read them? But let’s revisit what you have so far presented:

        “But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!”

        And my favourite:

        “In the future humans will adore earthquakes!”

        Time after time I have shown you how change is not only welcomed by our Omnimalevolent Creator, but encouraged. Time after time, however, you have chosen to ignore what is before your very eyes. [Please see Cognitive Dissonance]. Your appeal to “future” technology is not only meaningless, but counter-serving. Let’s revisit the keel analogy, shall we? Prior to its invention the life expectancy of sailors was abysmal, as too were their navigational possibilities. After its invention the life expectancy of sailors skyrocketed, as too did navigational possibilities. Being able to steer, more or less, into the wind explorers reached out over the horizon. Seaborne trade routes were established, commerce flourished, technology was transferred, and new lands were discovered… and then conquered. Where more advanced civilisations landed indigenous populations were decimated and new, prosperous cities established. These people, with their better technology and knowledge, lived longer, vastly more complex lives than simple primitives whose potential for intricate and intimate suffering was nominal, at best. Genocide to one side, commercial routes enabled the spread of plagues, and heightened the intensity and brutality of wars. Empires were formed riding on the humble keel, and new diseases were shipped around the world. Population’s bloomed, natural habitats were destroyed, and the inequality of wealth distribution created entirely new classes of the economically oppressed… Not to mention millions upon millions upon millions of slaves. So you see, a wonderful new technology is discovered and introduced. The marketplace is expanded, and the ways and varieties in which man can suffer (and inflict suffering) burgeon, right alongside his successes.

        Now, I can repeat this exercise with virtually every single technology or discovery you can throw out there. We’ve already dealt with medicine, but if you like, I could pen pages on its superficially fine-looking wonders, and how those wonders increased the aggregate of global suffering. Here’s one to whet your appetite: Iraq war injuries and the astonishing advances in combat medicine. World War II, 75% of the wounded would survive. During Iraq, that number was up to 90%. Now don’t get confused here: body armor and battlefield hemorrhage control has changed the nature of the injured actually reaching ER’s. The patients today are typically far more badly injured than in WW2, and this is where “Damage control resuscitation and surgery” comes in. Incredible advances in blood loss control and severe body trauma surgery has meant tens of thousands of young men and women who would have most certainly died during the Vietnam era are alive today… minus legs, arms, hands, half their face, eyes, a mouth, laden with traumatic brain damage, PTSD, nervous disorders, social disorders, insanity. Their lives have been saved, but they now face decades of a potentially horrid existence filled with financial distress, marital breakups, depression, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, a sense of utter desolation and hopelessness, dashed hopes, and sexual frustration.

        For a thoroughly debased designer, what is more fulfilling and offers the greater return on investment: a dead soldier, or a blind, crippled invalid looking at forty-years of mental and physical anguish?

        But again, you appeal to a non-existent, astonishingly vague, non-time-specific dream “future” as if that is a valid argument. It’s not, on two accounts: 1. I have proven through historical patterns that technology merely increases the field and scope and depth of potential suffering, and 2. You’re appealing to fantasy while ignoring present day facts. You live inside a Robert Reed novel, which is fine, but the Great Ship is fiction. Very good fiction, but fiction nonetheless. Open William Gibson’s, Neuromancer, or John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War and an alternative, equally valid, yet expediently more probable future is presented. Open the cover to any of the Christian evangelical End Times books (the thousands of them, out shadowing all science fiction genres combined) and you’ll see the ghastly future many, many, many of your countrymen envisage…. and, worryingly, long for. You have people in your country committing mass atrocities nearly every week because they think the End Times are here. And I see you simply ignored the insanity of your very own members of Congress; the men and women who sit on your countries highest “Science Committee.” I’d be embarrassed, too; embarrassed and frightened and profoundly depressed.

        But again: congratulations on failing to address a single thing I wrote.

        Like

      • As expected, you failed to counter the fact that your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy. Thus you lost the debate. It’s as simple as that.

        Instead of countering that fact you used another logical fallacy called Appeal to Hypocrisy:

        “trying to dismiss or downplay an accusation by demonstrating that the accuser himself is guilty of misconduct.”

        (Of course, your accusations were completely disingenuous, baseless and fraudulent. All of them. Ex. you asserted: “Your hasty, naïve assumption that the US represented the world” – I never made such claim or assumption. Period.)

        Like

      • LOL! You most certainly, hastily, implied it.

        So, will you admit your “case study” was thoroughly thrashed? Can you own defeat, acknowledge the World Health Organisations data, and concede I was correct?

        I somehow doubt it.

        Like

      • In case you’re such a complete idiot, that you don’t even understand why you lost the debate, here is the reason:

        I asked you, begged you, pleaded with you, repeatedly, to substantiate the prediction on which your theory is based:

        “SUFFERING IS GUARANTEED, AND THE OMNIMALEVOLENT DESIGNER HAS MADE IT SUCH THAT SUFFERING IS ALWAYS INCREASED OVER TIME

        The definition of the word ALWAYS is:

        “at all times; on all occasions; for all future time; forever.”

        This means that your theory predicted that suffering will be continually increasing 10 years from now, 1,000 years from now, 1,000,000 years from now, and so on. That increase in suffering is a permanent, unalterable trend.

        Now, I gave you every opportunity to substantiate your theory. Every chance.

        I asked you to substantiate your prediction countless times. But instead of doing so, your whole debating strategy rested on the logical fallacy of Diversion:

        attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely

        Instead of substantiating your theory, you tried to substantiate numerous other completely irrelevant arguments that had nothing to do with what you actually had to demonstrate. And yet, I persevered in this tedious effort to help you substantiate your theory. But you emphatically refused to substantiate it.

        And so, the final straw was this exchange:

        TBP X: “In other words, you have to substantiate the claim that suffering will be continually increasing 10 years from now, 1,000 years from now, 1,000,000 years from now, and so on.”

        JZ: No, I don’t. I merely have to demonstrate, as I have done repeatedly, the presence and stability of trends exampled throughout history.

        In this short exchange you asserted that you categorically refuse to substantiate your theory. Fine. Then there is no reason for me to waste my time on your lies and diversions. Since you refuse to substantiate your theory, you lose the debate.

        As for your argument to why you refuse to substantiate your theory, I’ve already pointed out “cellphones not existing for 13 billion years” is a perfect example of a trend that was present and stable throughout history. But that trend could not substantiate the claim that cellphones will always not exist. That’s a logical fallacy called a Hasty Generalization, because the “stable trend” does not take into account all the variables (such as developments that will take place in the future). It is good that you realize the absurdity in the example. But for some reason you fail to realize that this is all your “general trend” argument amounts to.

        So all the 20,000+ words we exchanged could not save you from yourself. You categorically refused to substantiate your theory. And your entire theory rests on your “general trend” argument (ie. “the stable trend of cellphones not existing 13 billion years proves that cellphones will ALWAYS not exist”). Because you did not, and could not, counter the fact that your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy, you lost the debate.

        Like

      • “You categorically refused to substantiate your theory”

        LOL! So presenting historical examples which chronicle and support the proposition in a clear and unambiguous way are now, somehow, in your peculiar mind, not actually evidence of that proposition? Priceless!

        “And your entire theory rests on your “general trend” argument”

        So let’s get your fabulously odd, but certainly hilarious, reasoning out in full view here.

        By your argument:

        Evolutionary biology is a meaningless science because biologists can’t faithfully predict what a string of meerkats alive today might evolve into in 10,000 generations.

        Geology is a meaningless science because geologists can’t faithfully predict what the coastline of West Africa, or the structure of the Andes, will look like in 20,000 years.

        Virology is a meaningless science because virologists can’t faithfully predict what new strains of viruses will exist in 1 years’ time, let alone 10.

        Chemistry is a meaningless science because chemists can’t faithfully predict what compounds will be in use 30 years from today.

        Economics is a meaningless science because economists can’t faithfully predict what a countries economy will look like in 50 years.

        Meteorology is a meaningless science because meteorologists can faithfully predict weather patterns 80 years from today.

        Botany is a meaningless science because botanists can’t faithfully predict what species of plant will flourish across the Rift Valley in 5,000 years.

        Astronomy is a meaningless science because astronomers can’t faithfully predict what our galaxy will look like in 50 billion years.

        Archaeology is a meaningless science because archaeologists can’t faithfully predict what ancient sites will be first unearthed in 20 years.

        Medicine is a meaningless science because doctors can’t faithfully predict what forms of treatment will exist in 10 years’ time, or what diseases and health risks will be prevalent.

        Sound about right?

        Like

      • “You categorically refused to substantiate your theory”

        LOL! So presenting historical examples which chronicle and support the proposition in a clear and unambiguous way are now, somehow, in your peculiar mind, not actually evidence of that proposition? Priceless!

        Great. Your entire theory rests on the “general trend” argument, which amounts to saying that“the stable trend of cellphones not existing 13 billion years proves that cellphones will ALWAYS not exist”.

        “And your entire theory rests on your “general trend” argument”

        So let’s get your fabulously odd, but certainly hilarious, reasoning out in full view here.

        By your argument:

        Evolutionary biology is a meaningless science because biologists can’t faithfully predict what a string of meerkats alive today might evolve into in 10,000 generations.

        Geology is a meaningless science because geologists can’t faithfully predict what the coastline of West Africa, or the structure of the Andes, will look like in 20,000 years.

        Virology is a meaningless science because virologists can’t faithfully predict what new strains of viruses will exist in 1 years’ time, let alone 10.

        Chemistry is a meaningless science because chemists can’t faithfully predict what compounds will be in use 30 years from today.

        Economics is a meaningless science because economists can’t faithfully predict what a countries economy will look like in 50 years.

        Meteorology is a meaningless science because meteorologists can faithfully predict weather patterns 80 years from today.

        Botany is a meaningless science because botanists can’t faithfully predict what species of plant will flourish across the Rift Valley in 5,000 years.

        Astronomy is a meaningless science because astronomers can’t faithfully predict what our galaxy will look like in 50 billion years.

        Archaeology is a meaningless science because archaeologists can’t faithfully predict what ancient sites will be first unearthed in 20 years.

        Medicine is a meaningless science because doctors can’t faithfully predict what forms of treatment will exist in 10 years’ time, or what diseases and health risks will be prevalent

        Let the record show that once again you did not counter the fact that your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy.

        You merely used another logical fallacy called Strawman

        attempting to refute one’s opponent’s proposition by attacking misrepresentation of the his/her position.

        Each of these sciences is substantiated by mechanisms at work that can be tested. None of the sciences you mentioned rests entirely on the claim that because there is a certain general trend or phenomenon that has been repeatedly observed over a given period (or throughout history) this trend will ALWAYS continue, forever.
        Yet that is precisely what your theory claims. The gist of your argument is this:

        There is a general trend of increase in suffering that has been observed throughout history. Therefore suffering is ALWAYS increased over time

        An argument that is analogous to says:

        There is a general trend of cellphones not existing for 13 billion years. Therefore cellphones will ALWAYS not exist.

        Because you did not and could not counter this fact you lost the debate.

        Like

      • And so again: earthquake-proofing construction technology (dampeners, for example) not existing [for] 13 billion years proves earthquake-proofing construction technology will always not exist.

        Can you perhaps explain this oddity? How can earthquake-proofing construction technology possibly exist? Is it a miracle?

        “None of the sciences you mentioned rests entirely on the claim that because there is a certain general trend or phenomenon that has been repeatedly observed over a given period (or throughout history) this trend will ALWAYS continue, forever.”

        All of these sciences rest entirely on observed/recorded/mapped historical trends and present observation/experimentation which afford a certain predictive capacity. None of these sciences can faithfully predict the shape of anything out beyond a certain point. By your wonderfully flawed reasoning, every one of these sciences is therefore meaningless.

        I have presented definitive, unambiguous, explicit example after example proving my proposition throughout history and into the present, with subsequent predictive value into the near future. If you wish to challenge the predictive value of the proposition, you must demonstrate that there is a truly massive, decisively monumental, and undeniably permanent shift presently occurring in those (historic/present day) trends for your protests to have any logical value, whatsoever.

        Would you like me to list just some of those things you’d have to demonstrate? I identified quite a few, such as having to demonstrate that we are reversing the global human population bloom, and then prove we can fix it permanently at about 4 billion. You would have to demonstrate that corporations consider human and animal life more valuable than profit. You would have to demonstrate that global financial markets are moving emphatically toward fixed and rigid stability, free of all debt, speculative trading, and bubble economics. You would have to demonstrate the wealth gap moving in any direction other than further and faster apart. You would have to demonstrate definitive movements to sound resource management, and the curtailment of unchecked consumerism and wasteful consumption. You would have to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection is driving all organisms toward less organism-on-organism violence, not more efficiency in forward brutality and reactionary defence. You would have to demonstrate that land, water and air resources are not just being protected, but reclaimed, and will never again be polluted. You would have to demonstrate that war can be eradicated forever, greed abolished completely, and a common sense of shared purpose established within all human populations. You would have to demonstrate that all weapons could be removed from the world, and never return. You would have to demonstrate that virus’s will no-longer mutate.

        Of course, you won’t answer any of this, or admit your own politicians are driving your country backwards, but allow me to make a predictive call for what you will offer:

        “But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!”

        “In the future humans will adore earthquakes!”

        Like

      • Let the record show that once again you did not counter the fact that your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy.

        You merely used another logical fallacy called False Equivalence:

        a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

        Making the absurd argument that science too is based on the same logic as your theory. It most definitely isn’t.

        Let the record also show that you did not actually counter the argument I made about why your theory is not scientific. You merely used another logical fallacy called Stacking the Deck:

        A fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored.

        So let’s look again at my argument, and expose your smoke-and-mirrors approach to debating. Here is what I said:

        “None of the sciences you mentioned rests entirely on the claim that because there is a certain general trend or phenomenon that has been repeatedly observed over a given period (or throughout history) this trend will ALWAYS continue, forever.”

        Notice the point I was making: the point was that no science makes the claim that because a certain trend has been observed over a given period, this means that this trend will always continue, indefinitely – unlike your theory, which states exactly that (i.e. There is a general trend of increase in suffering that has been observed throughout history. Therefore suffering is ALWAYS increased over time).

        Now, where in your response did you ever address this point? Nowhere.

        Here is your response:

        All of these sciences rest entirely on observed/recorded/mapped historical trends and present observation/experimentation which afford a certain predictive capacity. None of these sciences can faithfully predict the shape of anything out beyond a certain point. By your wonderfully flawed reasoning, every one of these sciences is therefore meaningless.

        So here you said that scientific observations afford a certain limited predictive capacity. Which is exactly what I said. Yet your theory claims to have an unlimited predictive capacity. It states that suffering is always increased. Always means “forever; for all time“. So how did you address the point I was making, that there is no equivalence between science and your theory, and that you’re making a strawman argument instead of countering the fact that your theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy? By making another strawman argument:

        By your wonderfully flawed reasoning, every one of these sciences is therefore meaningless

        Did I argue that sciences are not based on observations or trends? No. Did I argue that sciences don’t afford a certain predictive capacity? No. What I argued is that sciences don’t make hasty conclusions without considering all the variables, which is what you did with your theory (ie. “suffering is always increased over time”).

        These sciences are meaningful precisely because they don’t make hasty conclusions without considering all of the variables. Unlike your theory, they do account for these variables! For a science to have any merit it must quantify uncertainty (parameter uncertainty and variability, structural uncertainty, experimental uncertainty, interpolation uncertainty, and so on).

        That’s what you systematically refused to do with your theory. Every time I raised the issue that there are different variables your theory doesn’t account for (like changes in technology, changes in social and economic structures, changes in predictive ability, changes in public sentiment, etc.), and that over long enough time, any of these changes can easily lead to a total reversal of the trends you described, you simply dismissed it with your blanket strawman argument: “But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!”

        Well, that’s why your theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy. You simply based your arguments on the Stacking the Deck logical fallacy, consistently ignoring any changes in variables that can completely reverse the trends you described.

        And then there is this:

        And so again: earthquake-proofing construction technology (dampeners, for example) not existing [for] 13 billion years proves earthquake-proofing construction technology will always not exist.

        Can you perhaps explain this oddity? How can earthquake-proofing construction technology possibly exist? Is it a miracle?

        Now, I didn’t think that losing the debate would have such a drastic effect on your cognitive abilities and emotional state, but apparently I underestimated the toll this debate took on you. At this point it is clear that you’ve completely lost your mind. You can’t seem to follow the simplest line of reasoning.

        You see, it is your theory that is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy. Not mine. Here it is again, in case you forgot:

        There is a general trend of increase in suffering that has been observed throughout history. Therefore suffering is ALWAYS increased over time

        Now, I never made any sweeping generalizations about earthquake-proofing technology either always existing or always not existing. So I’m not sure what you want from me. Are you asking how is it possible that although earthquake-proofing technology didn’t exist for 13 billion years that now it exists? Is that your question? Are you feeling OK?

        I have presented definitive, unambiguous, explicit example after example proving my proposition throughout history and into the present, with subsequent predictive value into the near future.

        The key words here are: “into the near future

        But that is not what you had to substantiate, is it? Should I remind you one last time what you had to substantiate? Here it is:

        “SUFFERING IS GUARANTEED, AND THE OMNIMALEVOLENT DESIGNER HAS MADE IT SUCH THAT SUFFERING IS ALWAYS INCREASED OVER TIME“

        Do you see your error now? Your “definitive, unambiguous, explicit example after example” did not substantiate what you actually had to substantiate this whole time. Your theory made the prediction that suffering is ALWAYS increased – for all time, not just “into the near future.” And so at no point did you actually substantiate the prediction your theory made. Thus, you lost the debate.

        If you wish to challenge the predictive value of the proposition, you must demonstrate that there is a truly massive, decisively monumental, and undeniably permanent shift presently occurring in those (historic/present day) trends for your protests to have any logical value, whatsoever.

        I have no problem with the “predictive value” of your proposition. The problem is that it completely fails to substantiate the prediction on which your theory rests. As I’ve demonstrated over and over again.

        Would you like me to list just some of those things you’d have to demonstrate? I identified quite a few, such as having to demonstrate that we are reversing the global human population bloom, and then prove we can fix it permanently at about 4 billion. You would have to demonstrate that corporations consider human and animal life more valuable than profit. You would have to demonstrate that global financial markets are moving emphatically toward fixed and rigid stability, free of all debt, speculative trading, and bubble economics. You would have to demonstrate the wealth gap moving in any direction other than further and faster apart. You would have to demonstrate definitive movements to sound resource management, and the curtailment of unchecked consumerism and wasteful consumption. You would have to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection is driving all organisms toward less organism-on-organism violence, not more efficiency in forward brutality and reactionary defence. You would have to demonstrate that land, water and air resources are not just being protected, but reclaimed, and will never again be polluted. You would have to demonstrate that war can be eradicated forever, greed abolished completely, and a common sense of shared purpose established within all human populations. You would have to demonstrate that all weapons could be removed from the world, and never return. You would have to demonstrate that virus’s will no-longer mutate.

        Of course, you won’t answer any of this, or admit your own politicians are driving your country backwards, but allow me to make a predictive call for what you will offer:

        “But we can change, and you can’t prove we can’t!”
        “In the future humans will adore earthquakes!”

        The only point which is relevant to the prediction your theory made, that suffering will always increase over time (long term) is this:

        You would have to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection is driving all organisms toward less organism-on-organism violence, not more efficiency in forward brutality and reactionary defense

        And I already countered it by the fact that the most Evolutionary Stable Strategy is altruism/cooperation (with the capacity to contain or eliminate cheaters). All bacteria on earth already exhibit this ability to a high degree, and bacteria represent the vast majority of life on the planet. Which means that cooperation is most likely to be dominant strategy for most if not all species in the long term (billions of years, perhaps).

        As for the rest of your questions, there is no reason to refute again that which has already been thoroughly refuted. As I said, your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy. You could not counter this fact, though you tried numerous times. You also finally admitted that your “general trend” argument does not substantiate the prediction your theory made (suffering is ALWAYS increased over time), since it only has predictive value “into the near future.” So as I said, throughout this entire debate you tried to defend a proposition which was completely irrelevant to what your theory predicted.

        So congratulations on losing the debate.

        I must say though, you do have fantastic rhetorical ability. Try to use it for good..

        Like

      • It’s really quite extraordinary just how much of what you write can be ignored for the utter nonsense that it is.

        “A fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored.”

        LOL! Please, refresh my memory: have you presented a single piece of contradictory evidence demonstrating that the total aggregate of suffering hasn’t increased over time? Of course you haven’t. Have you presented any evidence demonstrating a massive and permanent shift in established historical trends; a movement so profound that it clearly and unequivocally indicates suffering won’t continue increasing into the near future? Of course you haven’t. What you did do was run as fast as you could away from the conclusions published in the Human Dynamics model, and present this gem: “in the future, humans will adore earthquakes!

        Impressive.

        As I pointed out to you earlier, only one person chatting here is actually basing their arguments on historical facts, real world present day data, and the observable trends afforded by that data. Here’s a hint to that person’s identity: it isn’t you.

        Now, considering you can’t present a single shred of documented evidence demonstrating that the total aggregate of suffering hasn’t increased over time, I offered you a chance to challenge the predictive value of the proposition (which the trends conspicuously support). To help you along, I listed a number of possible categories for you to focus on, but predictably, you failed to rise to the occasion. You failed to present any evidence for the world’s population bloom being reversed, or proof that it could be capped at 4 billion. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that global financial markets are moving emphatically toward fixed and rigid stability, free of all debt, speculative trading, and bubble economics. You failed to present any evidence showing that corporations valued human and animal life greater than profit. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating the wealth gap moving in any direction other than further and faster apart. You failed to present any evidence showing definitive movements toward sound resource management, and the curtailment of unchecked consumerism and wasteful consumption. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that land, water and air resources are not just being protected, but reclaimed, and will never again be polluted. You failed to present any evidence showing Man Made Global Climate Change is being reversed, and failed to prove it wouldn’t adversely affect great swaths of our current civilisation. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that war can be eradicated forever, greed abolished completely, and a common sense of shared purpose established within all human populations.

        Impressive stuff! You did, however, take the time out of your day to present this new nugget of pure surrealism: “cooperation is most likely to be dominant strategy for most if not all species in the long term (billions of years, perhaps).”

        Ignoring the glorious fuzziness of “most likely to… in billions of years” are you suggesting that in the “future” lions will play gently with baby antelope, sharks will be vegetarians, and viruses will chose to photosynthesise instead of searching out new warm-blooded hosts…. or rather that species will organise themselves more efficiently to combat and kill other species? LOL!

        “Every time I raised the issue that there are different variables your theory doesn’t account for (like changes in technology, changes in social and economic structures, changes in predictive ability, changes in public sentiment, etc.)”

        Can you spell COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

        Now seriously, how many times do you want me to repeat this? Just give me a number so I know, OK?

        “When you scream hopefully to the air “But we can change!” our Omnimalevolent Creator calmly replies, “Good.” Change and sporadic bursts of development keeps the killing fields fresh and forever plump”

        Would you like me to detail the keel example again, or maybe revisit the combat medicine case study? Perhaps you’d prefer me to outline some other real world example? No problem. I can present as many historical examples as you like. Just give me the word, OK?

        So, are you going to admit your stunningly narrow-minded road fatality “case study” was thoroughly thrashed? Can you own defeat, acknowledge the World Health Organisations data, and concede I was correct?

        I doubt it.

        Also, why do you keep avoiding talking about the politicians who sit on your countries highest science committee? These are, after all, the learned men and women shaping your countries science policy. These are the bright men and women directing your country toward the future you dream of; people like Jim Sensenbrenner (“I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climate cycles than anything that human beings do”), Mo Brooks (“We have higher levels of carbon dioxide. That means that plant life grows better. Does that mean I want more of it? I don’t know about the adverse effects of carbon dioxide on human beings”), Sandy Adams (“I am encouraging us to reduce funding for climate change research), and Paul Broun (“Scientists all over the world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated by the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus”). Might you perhaps be ignoring this awkward subject because your own politicians are in fact marching your country backwards, and you just don’t want to admit it?

        Again, can you spell, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

        Like

      • OK. I’m done here. You’re clearly a mental case.

        This debate has ended a long time ago, with YOUR UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNDENIABLE LOSS. YOUR LOGICALLY FLAWED THEORY HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY REFUTED. You simply COULDN’T COUNTER the fact that your entire theory is based on the HASTY GENERALIZATION LOGICAL FALLACY. All of it. Your entire argument amounts to saying “There is a general trend of cellphones not existing for 13 billion years. Therefore cellphones will ALWAYS not exist over time.”

        That’s all it is. That’s the entire breadth and depth of your argument. There is nothing more to it. Here is your argument again, in case you’re so delusional that you don’t see how these are identical:

        “There is a general trend of increase in suffering that has been observed throughout history. Therefore suffering is ALWAYS increased over time.”

        Let me remind you that at no point could you counter the fact that your entire theory is based on the Hasty Generalization logical fallacy in any way shape or form. Never. You didn’t even come close. You’re still at square one. Your new strategy is ignoring it and hoping it goes away. Brilliant!

        You did however use every LOGICAL FALLACY in the book to try to evade this undeniable truth. Which only shows your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. Your arguments are based on fraud and deception, not rational reasoning.

        And now you want me to prove that at this moment (or “in the near future”) your carefully curated trends won’t reverse. Hhahahahahhahahahhhahaa!
        You’re in full denial mode of the fact that it is YOU who has to demonstrate that these trends can NEVER change! Since that’s what YOUR theory predicted (“suffering is ALWAYS increased over time” – for all time, FOREVER).

        All I have to demonstrate is that, given an UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME (“suffering is ALWAYS increased,” remember?), these trends can reverse – and this is trivial. It is not worth the time to even bother demonstrating. It is self-evident.

        Also, now you’re pretending that all you had to prove was that the ”total aggregate” of suffering is increased over time?! Again: hahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha! You’re psychotic. So if all living organisms live in perfect harmony from now and to eternity, but every billion years or so a child bumps his foot on a table, you can declare: “Aha! the aggregate of suffering has increased! My theory is correct! The Omnimalevolent Creator has done it again.” What a moron.

        Cognitive dissonance indeed.

        Like

      • LOL! Please, refresh my memory: have you presented a single piece of contradictory evidence demonstrating that the total aggregate of suffering hasn’t increased over time? Of course you haven’t. Have you presented any evidence demonstrating a massive and permanent shift in established historical trends; a movement so profound that it clearly and unequivocally indicates suffering won’t continue increasing into the near future? Of course you haven’t. What you did do was run as fast as you could away from the conclusions published in the Human Dynamics model, and present this gem: “in the future, humans will adore earthquakes!”
        Impressive.

        Please, refresh my memory: have you presented a single piece of contradictory evidence demonstrating that cellphones existed in the first 13 billion years of the universe? Of course you haven’t. Have you presented any evidence demonstrating a massive and permanent shift in established historical trends of cellphones not existing in the first 13 billion years of the universe; a movement so profound that it clearly and unequivocally indicates cellphones will not continue not existing into the near future after the first 13 billion years of the universe? Of course you haven’t. What you did do was run as fast as you could away from the conclusions published in the “No Cellphones Discovered in the Andromeda Galaxy” study, and present this gem: “in the future, a species of primates on planet Earth in the Milky Way Galaxy will develop cellphones”
        Impressive.

        As I pointed out to you earlier, only one person chatting here is actually basing their arguments on historical facts, real world present day data, and the observable trends afforded by that data. Here’s a hint to that person’s identity: it isn’t you.

        As I pointed out to you earlier, only one person chatting here is actually basing their arguments on historical facts, real world data of the first 13 billion years of the universe, and the observable trends afforded by that data. Here’s a hint to that person’s identity: it isn’t you.

        Now, considering you can’t present a single shred of documented evidence demonstrating that the total aggregate of suffering hasn’t increased over time, I offered you a chance to challenge the predictive value of the proposition (which the trends conspicuously support).

        Now, considering you can’t present a single shred of documented evidence demonstrating the existence of cellphones in the first 13 billion years of the universe, I offered you a chance to challenge the predictive value of the proposition (which the trends conspicuously support).

        To help you along, I listed a number of possible categories for you to focus on, but predictably, you failed to rise to the occasion. You failed to present any evidence for the world’s population bloom being reversed, or proof that it could be capped at 4 billion. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that global financial markets are moving emphatically toward fixed and rigid stability, free of all debt, speculative trading, and bubble economics. You failed to present any evidence showing that corporations valued human and animal life greater than profit. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating the wealth gap moving in any direction other than further and faster apart. You failedto present any evidence showing definitive movements toward sound resource management, and the curtailment of unchecked consumerism and wasteful consumption. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that land, water and air resources are not just being protected, but reclaimed, and will never again be polluted. You failed to present any evidence showing Man Made Global Climate Change is being reversed, and failed to prove it wouldn’t adversely affect great swaths of our current civilisation. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that war can be eradicated forever, greed abolished completely, and a common sense of shared purpose established within all human populations.

        To help you along, I listed a number of possible categories for you to focus on, but predictably, you failed to rise to the occasion. You failed to present any evidence for the existence of cellphones during the Big Bang, or proof that cellphones existed during the Planck epoch or the subsequent 3 picoseconds afterward. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that clouds of gas are capable of creating cellphones, or that Black Holes can form such complex machines. You failed to present any evidence showing that hydrogen and helium can spontaneously form cellphones. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating how unicellular organisms can produce such technology, or in fact have any use for it. You failed to present any evidence showing definitive movements toward metals being extracted from the ground or plastics forming from organic solids, and the self-organization of these materials into a functional telecommunication device. You failed to present any evidence demonstrating that trees can understand the principles of engineering necessary for even designing a basic landline phone. 

        Impressive stuff! You did, however, take the time out of your day to present this new nugget of pure surrealism: “cooperation is most likely to be dominant strategy for most if not all species in the long term (billions of years, perhaps).
        Impressive stuff! You did, however, take the time out of your day to present this new nugget of pure surrealism: “It is likely that there will evolve a species in a few hundred million years equipped with opposable thumbs and the cranial capacity to understand complex laws of physics and engineering.

        Would you like me to detail the keel example again, or maybe revisit the combat medicine case study? Perhaps you’d prefer me to outline some other real world example? No problem. I can present as many historical examples as you like. Just give me the word, OK

        Would you like me to detail the all the places in the universe where cellphones haven’t been found in the first 13 billion years, or maybe revisit the last 5 billion years, year by year, where there was no evidence whatsoever of even metals and plastics spontaneously self-organizing into any functional device? No problem. I can present as many historical examples as you like. Just give me the word, OK

        So, are you going to admit your stunningly narrow-minded road fatality “case study” was thoroughly thrashed? Can you own defeat, acknowledge the World Health Organisations data, and concede I was correct?
        I doubt it.

        So, are you going to admit your stunningly narrow-minded “evolution of consciousness” study was thoroughly thrashed? Can you own defeat, acknowledge the non-existence of cellphones data for the first 13 billion years of the universe, and concede I was correct?
        I doubt it.

        Also, why do you keep avoiding talking about the politicians who sit on your countries highest science committee? These are, after all, the learned men and women shaping your countries science policy. These are the bright men and women directing your country toward the future you dream of…

        Also, why do you keep avoiding talking about the most complex life forms on Earth – the dinosaurs – who dominate every niche on this planet and do not allow any rodent even the slightest chance of evolving any cranial capacity of the scale that requires the development of cellphones. These are extremely powerful creatures, and they are not going anywhere in the near future.

        Again, can you spell, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

        COGNITIVE DISSONANCE indeed.

        Like

      • See there, impeccable “logic.”

        “There is a general trend of cellphones not existing for 13 billion years. Therefore cellphones will ALWAYS not exist over time.”

        And you cannot show the data from the first 13 billion years of the universe to demonstrate otherwise! That’s the gist of your argument.

        Like

      • Obviously, what I’ve demonstrated is a logical fallacy called Red Herring:

        A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

        Topic A is under discussion.
        Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
        Topic A is abandoned.

        The topic under discussion was the prediction your theory made: “suffering is ALWAYS increased over time” (for all time; forever). You had to demonstrate suffering will continue to increase forever. Not just in the near future.

        The irrelevant, Red Herring topics you introduced were “historic data” (like the historic data of cellphones not existing for 13 billion years), and trends “for the near future” (like no trends of cellphones beginning to exist “in the near future” after the first 13 billion years of the universe). All meant to divert attention from the original issue, which is that you have to demonstrate that suffering will always increase, not just in the near future.

        SO, ARE YOU GOING TO ADMIT YOUR STUNNINGLY NARROW-MINDED RED HERRING RETORT WAS THOROUGHLY THRASHED? CAN YOU OWN DEFEAT, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR ENTIRE THEORY IS LOGICALLY FLAWED AND BASED ON THE HASTY GENERALIZATION LOGICAL FALLACY, AND CONCED YOU LOST THE DEBATE?

        I doubt it.

        Like

    • Hi Big

      Just so you know, this little conversation of ours spawned a book. It’s now finished and awaiting your perusal. The title, The Owner of All Infernal Names: An Introductory Treatise on the Existence, Nature & Government of our Omnimalevolent Creator.

      I’d be very keen to hear your response.

      I just posted a part of the Introduction, and the links to buy it are all there, but if you’re in the States, try this

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Owner+of+all+infernal+names

      or in the UK/Europe, try this

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Owner+of+All+Infernal+Names

      Like

  7. Pingback: Alas! The Problem Of Good Cannot Save Us! | Dead Wild Roses

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s